19721003 TZHC Mwanza
The appellant's claim fails because, at the time of her father's death in 1921, Haya customary law did not permit women to inherit clan land. The right to inherit was not conferred until around 1934 and was revoked by 1937, so no such right existed when succession occurred.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19721003 TZHC Mwanza
- Parties
- Appellant: PLINNA B/C YL3.iO; Respondent: Ibraei.r uTic; Respondent: second respondent (not named)
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 3 October 1972
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From District Court Decision
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Inheritance Rights of Women, Customary Land Tenure, Limitation of Actions
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
PLINNA B/C YL3.iO
Appellant
Ibraei.r uTic
Respondent
second respondent (not named)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From District Court Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant, a woman, was entitled under customary law to inherit clan land
- 2 Whether the claim was barred by limitation due to delay in bringing the action
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant's claim fails because, at the time of her father's death in 1921, Haya customary law did not permit women to inherit clan land. The right to inherit was not conferred until around 1934 and was revoked by 1937, so no such right existed when succession occurred.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Decision of the District Court upheld
- Appellant to pay costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
i Iii ::iu ci.rp y:Z.h\TTA Y (PC) C.VIL J22 .1 HO, 96 CT 1971 (Fron the dccisi;n of the District Court f Bukoba at Bukca in Civil Aipoal i'To,109 of 1971 Before J,L, Bbonci':o, ec:., D.LI. and :..uhutwe Priary Court evi1 Case 1:o,6/7-1). BI iI1Tf. BYf.BLfO •, IFBILtd'T ITS. 1 IULLZI 2. IT eHIiiU i3EK0hY.. ) JIJDG-b.BiTT KISiJ'TG-A, J. The PLIINA B/C YL3.iO sued both respondents join1y for the recovery of a clan shauha. The I'rivary Court at iiiihutwe allowed the clair1 but on the lot aiooai the District Court at Jukoba reversed the decision and hence the arreal to this Court. The f01loring facts wore not in dispute, ihesuit sheriha is a clan sharba bo1ong±n to the aol1ant 's father, one 3yabat.o :3yabato died when the aTy)cLlant wo aged only about three to four years. Opon Byabato s death the suit land bocceae vested in Bprfato ?e father who survived hir. Byabato 'sfather in turn di ed soo n tiiio before the second world war at a tire whoa the ap : dhi1t was nlroady nzrracd Upon bo c cotb of y r o 's or c Si at is was c C over by the respondent Ibraei.r uTic is the uncle of the arrellant. Between 1936 and 1936 the resoondent Ibrahir sold tbc land to the seconc r000"i er rlce7l. tfor n, 'Jc ont 'b' disarpearod to sore other village ..nd could not be traced until in 1970 3, irrodiatoly after which the Dellart brought this action. The District i.Iagie trato found a rin.et the ar elLiot on wo groands, na:'.oly, that there was too long a delr in bringing the action, and that u-i. any case the r chant being a irO: an was not entitled under the Custora.ry Law to inherit land, and for the SCCnd ground bo rcl±c.d on lckic csc of v Yuscnn inzire. 1968 iI,C.D. E8. I shall deal with the second ground Jiret. A note to paragrah 21 (a) of Cory and hartnohl on Custorary Law of the Hayr tribe provides that as at 1945 woron could not inherit land although they could accuiro it by purchase, by allocation or payrent of "Kisheabe to the Native Authority or by inheritonce during the tiiie when woran were allowed to inherit land. the note further says that sore years prior to 1945 the European Apreal Court allowed woron to inherit land, and it cites two decisions, Is A,- pca1 Bo 25 of 1934 and -P.C. Is Appeal ho,lO of 1934 whacJ, would appeor to have conferred this right on woren. however, shortly afterwards, the note go os on, those dcc: siono wore over-ruled by the chief's decree, because they were coriplotely against the Hayr tradition, and this decree was ap - leed in the case of Bibi -3 0 's Yo. 4/P.1/5 of 1937 'i which a clai; of inhritecce of land by a woi anwas disallowed. Now, a'ilying thcso rules to the tacts of the rrcsont case, it is clar that the np chart cou.L not clairitho suit land b purchase or by aliocaceon on cay icie of Nlehoin)o co the tacivo Auchor.ty T.en the ques -cion is whe -cher inc clam could cc based dii the ground that the appellant inhorted the land uben no 'ion wore allowed by the European Appeal Cour - 4 to inherit land. It is not clear fron' the note by Cory and hnbno1l cited above in what year exactly the Lurorcan iaopeat Court cenforrod on i' os:.cn tha right to nhcrit land, or in which year o::actl3i the chiefs decreed against that right. . .12 — -2-- oucvor, fron t ho cs citc..n o - c n to bj Oor3T o' ...2.1f101J_ it ic soon thnt t ho ri ht to Hhurit Wnd uns cnrrod o n in or roimd 1934, and uo.s VVor . : - or Eround 1937. When the r.YDOIiC.flt 'c ihtIicr cId the ol1un vos ay& oiout thrus to four . jacn tho a7polMN Eo ~. ~ (_( - u. the'J f this a D pazl. or ago &M 00 ut55 7 o nrs . This nc m s th 2 t 'u.r fa lhor aso.t 1921 u.. ..• s---j -u.cu ufo ur hut is h a s boon sour oc.ri*.ur ho ri.ht to i_nhorit lund was cc:'[errod on WOPOn onlu in or nra -ud 1934 and thernfora no such rioht could hovo uxistod when thu no ci nut 's fnLhur diod over u. ciocndo carliur in 1921. (ionsacucutly , 1 nn of ha viau that tic n -Iuoiiuot s c l aip fai ls bacauso mt the thm S or §Ml or MY s' c ns not or'.titicd ui-tc.or the 2h•3u1 Uuu::c:u.r3r Inn to inherit loud. Cu that gromd CuLOnO thfurs u:: so: ui'icc ho:,t thu clni:: -lcd md it w ool d not i n 3 V ccrzio Gr - a ltopno liQ rouud of li.:.itnticn of ochi:.':. s Accordingly i:' a docision Cf ths District Court is up-hold and thu ::.: ccl in di..soudTTith costs, t/1 iw is, 3rd Octobur, U.,72.