rehema shomari vs omari bafagih 2004 tzhc 22 6 july 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA

AT PAR ES SALAAM (SIVIL APPEAL NO. 185 OF 2001 REHEMA SHGMARI . . * % &PFSLLANT

VERSUS OMARI A r BZLFAGIH . . ~ HESE M I M 1S J U D G M E N ;T fiEMA- J.s This la ATI oppoctl tjy ppheriifi 3J * o h e r e i n a£te* feJewed to as the appellant against the judgment o£ Resident Magistrate^ Court of Dar es Salaam at' Kiftufcn* £Uoa. Kabuta RM) dated 22nd April £001. Omary Abdallah jga/agi is the respondent in this appeal. The aenKJwqptfuui ff trppeal ip cn the following four points: (1) error in law and fact on the part of the trial ;;I-!agistrTte in helling that the appellant has no any la?al interest *n til3 3v.it house No. 21 rir-^ Tr*-*~- -ctr^ot Dar. es Sala.ir:.. (2 ) error in law and fact by.the trial i . Viszistrate in holding the h..u»© ‘in dispute belonged to the lat^ Ashis ■ '‘ Kohamed alone and not a family property not capable of spld - without the consent of -other, family .members. (3) error in law and fact by1the trial ■M^gistrgte,’i^.Jiold±ng that *the late .Asha Mohanied was saVe at th 2 tir’e" • ,-i* of selling, the suit house.. •s •t • •; (4) the trial -Ma.^istrata errfel in law and in fact for failure to evaluate tne evidence cn the recora. 3 was not suffering from any mental illness as the purported report from Kuhiobili Medical Hospital was found to be not genuine and or a forgery. Asha Mohamed was found to be sane and attended the . trial and (5) Asha Kohansed was competent; to sell the suit hcus® without s^.kir.g the consent of

other family members. r« It may not be Irrelevant to c&sarve that as the trial in the Kiautu Resident K-»ira*C. c.,ur* «a« in pr-ogre both Saluo Shomary and Aaha Kohased, second Plaintiff and first defendant respectively were called to eternal pea«e and curiously tno ar^sll "jnt wo 3 -- „,•„+ J .. , . .v^3 ..pointed the admihigta*a±yiv of the estate of .Ash0 ^'oh'',~'<r>''i '-,-r xi . f ^ that tim© the suit against her was withdrawn-. I would like now to deal v/itn giroMnds of appeal- as presented. Learned Counssl fop the appellant etre -contending *o ttaP finding of the trial court that the appellant v ^ r . an interest in the suit house by virtue of her .therein. In reply counsel for the respondent submit that th^ ,testimony of the respondent who testified as D'.j 2- at the Stog&aA. . e tivs-b Aeha ,,j6!oba*nod «,« t±ie holder of the right. 9f,occupancy over the suit plot and that't^e a p r r f l W >aa* ^pne of the tenants in the suit house who were paid Tsha* 40,000/- in lieu of alternative, accomodation. /j3 such it A* autpittod •fciia't appellant has no lGg:,i A^roo-t iln the suit house. ^ I am inclined to accept the submission of the ^respondent that there is., on the balance .of probability I .sufficient -evidence and. as found .by the/learned trialCM | S | ; rate •that. the house in dispute belonged to and'is’new part the estate of the late Asha Mchamed. There is no

cogent evidence to support .appellant’s claim.,of.right over the', suit property. On the premise ground on*., of the.appeal. fails and is dismissed. The above a i r i n my view disposes: .of ground, two in-the neacranaun: of. appeal, in additi^l^. may:be. relevant to .take on board the following passage- in the respondent's submission. ■■■ *: Mrt lerEcro t.y Lore, .is y r considered JUtiEission that .cno* .’-f v-e - •o - -r.= t ^ t i,,, t: ,h3 s* : . ; w * z a ,t D'T' ’ T•'*■■ 04- "JL ^ - us uxe 03 w w'7:'°'!'l "u--- hr'-~ AA ^ sS-v-»c? ■--■-■r-* -—i-'., iiOMse "x r s -:~ v/nc are refsrreu ;o a; .cv:..±y aod or clan members '>rilin cut '-.f fc.h. 2 manner and terms of Joint o-^ersoir- xL the same. The family/c~an ner-bers 1aen decided bO ■ ’''1 c'rrq-j -<-V- '-..,. * .. -fa- u- — - • -3v a d divide the prcce .ds arrong thaissel’ es to resolve the 'ii.sunderstandin.2:. How can they now .; / fnctiier house id own it jointly and severally and yet ... lew one person an ins an i oerson to register the same in her ov»n name out of the oaid misunder- stan ling." ^ /lth regard to the third & fou-th grounds _,f ^ e a l I wish only to observe in relation to •ie s u b m i t )r bv counsel for the appellant that their cl.ent Cii O a r- n J * lns^ni'#-Hu o *r 4-u~ -i_ , , ... --------- -'lie i n s a n i t y o f the l a t e Asha Mohamed th e d c ty v^o u -~ r h ~ *> p ro ve t h a t a l l e g

a t i o n . At any r a t e i t i " . the report -have been 3 * !cc >ru t.iat P ^obtained frox* MuhimbiXi Medico wa s found t r) _ z > vDrt O.P. than t° i \ n o t ~g eAssociate Kllonzo, n u i n e a n ^ Professo- a of p ,vCi,t-, and Head of the Dp^rtm^-f t u• department *s In his latter z y /tz - w c /v < i/ Vol.XII of in+h ijIiC/Fol/B,l/ Vol.XII of 10th January 1996 Dr Kllonzo d T •* jpurported lettvr of l O h iu-u-t " qa^ > s c r a m s the whn „ 1 Ausast -995 by a Dr J.M. jUffia who is unknown ana had rot v"vr>-»' *-u , ,, n T V;' r -"J l n t h e Department. The letter o f Dr J.K. J u - v-s a 3- ••- r,.... - . n e of the appellant in c h i r a l ->ST V e?^' Proc^ r i g s Court of Ilal3 at u . ‘al ‘~ b2 >/- » “ Di -triet With such >nok,round no court o: law wcrth lts , ano 'tanding can a; ceot such a f«r>2 7 -L . .. . two : rounds zf : ,±1 c -liiU ^ U ' the £r ? 'od cted. -- /5 fail nd 1 " f°regolng r e a £ t t s that this apceol rust aU ad is consequently dismissed -.tth costs, th, - ■‘K 1 'Ct *e .C* “ Re31dent M a g i s t r a l ', Court of D .-r 4 Salaam ° ^ * Clvil < * " No.250 of ic9rt are uphold^ M? *istr- Pa®Sing 1 WOUlf- ^quest th-, teamed trial Resident r. v-' on in- . ana * ~ r ’ oY+Ait+ Ml' ^ S *-___ KaDutE -- satiify , t0 ... ■ ' herself wit withft the OAAt=f extent of hew aehema Shorn?ry is g^rim*«+ th e state of t , e la te n- - -C lu ste rin g ? Mohamec ’^ = n th e g r a n t o f ' >h-3. «<»*& l e t t e r s o f a d n n ’. a c r ^ t i c i t o h e r . G -kr-acc Order acc r*i'v IHHYLk)

JUDGE 6 /7 /2 0t Corair.; r, .... - ' ~ Ja„ x-or tr /ippsllr t; ) For tir. ^ e s p c n c l . n t : J F r -Js o n t i n parser; 3 C.C. : ' m —,-i.«JL ^wS> Order- Tu-.-;.:\. _ r t \-i i v — i •; p r e s e n c e of both