N
The district court found that the parcel of land allocated to the respondent by the village government was not part of the appellant's land.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- N
- Parties
- Appellant: Rajabu Mwinyimvua; Respondent: Athumani Kilusungu
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 1 January 1985
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Second Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Land Allocation, Appeals Procedure
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Rajabu Mwinyimvua
Appellant
Athumani Kilusungu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the district court erred in restoring the disputed land to the respondent
- 2 Whether the land allocated by the village committee was part of the appellant's land
Ratio Decidendi
The district court found that the parcel of land allocated to the respondent by the village government was not part of the appellant's land.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The decision of the district court is upheld
- The piece of land remains with the respondent
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA at DAR ES SALAAM (PC) C!VIL APPEAL NO. 8 OF 1)186 ' .(Fr.om the decision of the District Court of MCROOORO C1vi~ Appeal No. 38 of 85 Rajabu Mwir1Y.,imvua • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •.• • • • • Appellant versus Athwnani Kilusungu ••• , ••••• ~ •••• ~ ~. •• •.•.• -.-.. R€lspondent i ....... MNZ.AVAS Jal•• The appellant, Rajabu Mwinyimvua, successfully sued the present respondent/defendant, A~humani Kilusungu, in Taw_a Primary Court - Civil Case No. 22 of 1985, over a piece of land. :Qj.ssatisfied by the decision of the primary court Ath~~ani appeaJ.ed to Morogoro district cour,t ... AEPeal.:No. J8 of 1985 •. . ~s appeal was upheld and the piece of land was restored to him. Now Rajabu has appealed to this court against the decision of the first appellate eourt. ' Before this court Rajabu argued that the district court erred in giving part of his shainba to the respondent/defend&nt. The respondent .. I who also appeared in person before this Court argued that the disputed land was alloc~ted·to him by the local village committee• In his judgement the learned district magistrate said that 11 the v~llage did a commendable job to alloc_atE: the disputed shamba to the appellant" (now the defend~t). It was the district 1ourt' s view that the pa.reel of land alloce.tcd to the respondent by the village government v:as not part o~' 3.c:jabu Mwinyir:ivua' s land • the preGent appellant. / The primary court visited the dispu-:ed piece of land after· • hearing evidence. from both parties. Four witnesses gave evidence ' in support of the appellant/plaintiffs case and the respondent/ def enda.nt brought two witnesses. Apparently these two witnesses are among·the village committee members who had allocated the land to the re spong.@t/~fE:ll'.).(i:;i.n+. -