19700618 TZHC Mwanza
The court found that the land on which the respondent's shop is built is the same land transferred to the appellant after default on the loan, and thus the appellant is the rightful owner.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19700618 TZHC Mwanza
- Parties
- Appellant: Rutataza Biteyo; Respondent: Haji Saidi Selemani
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 18 June 1970
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Second Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Land Ownership, Pledge of Land, Transfer of Property
- 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
Rutataza Biteyo
Appellant
Haji Saidi Selemani
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the land on which the respondent's shop is built was validly transferred to the appellant
- 2 Whether the respondent has any right to remain on the land after transfer
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the land on which the respondent's shop is built is the same land transferred to the appellant after default on the loan, and thus the appellant is the rightful owner.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- Appellant awarded costs to and from Mwanza
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (In the District Registry.) - AT MWANZ. APPELLATE JURISDICTION0 • (pc) CIVIL APPEAL NO.21 OF 1970 (From the decision of the DistrictCourt of Bukoba Distriôt at Bukoba in CivilAppeal No.373 of 1969.) RUTATAZA BITEYO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPELLANT(Original Plain -tiff) vs. HAJI SAIDI SELEMANI. . . . . . . • . . . . . . RESPOIDENT(Origina1 Defendan JUDGMENT. MNZAVAS, AG. J. The appellant sued the respondent in the primary court seekinc an order to the effect that the land on which the respond.ent's shop is built is his land - (appellant's). The primary court after assessment of the evidence gave judgment in favour of the appellant. The two assessors who sat with him unanimously supported the decision. The respondent appealed to the district eoui't which reversed the judgment of the primary court and allowed the appeI. I The appellant has now come to this Court. That on 1.1o.66 the appellant gave shs.650/-, as a loan, to one Gervas Tibalila who pledged his shamba to him in return is evidentfrom the agreement dated. 1.10.66 ai signed by Gervas and witnessed by one Eustace Tiban.endera. The agreement also stipulated that the money was to be rQpaid to the appellant by 30.6.67 failing which the appellant would have the right to take ownership of the land. By 30.6.67 Gervas had not complied with terms of the agreement. On 4.8.67 he surrendered the land to the appellant, and signed .a declaration to that effect. This declaration was counter-signed by three people as witnesses. Looking at the evidence before the primary court it was amply proved that the respondent had asked and was permitted by Gervas to build his shop on the land before Gervas later transferred ownership of the land to the appellant on 4.8.67. This evidence was accepted by the two assessors and the primary court magistrate as truthful hence the judgment against the respondent/defendant. The finding by the district court that the land on which respondent's & shop is built is not the same land which was transferred to the appellant is not supported by the evidence before the primary court. From the evidence, I am in agreement with the decision of the primary court that the land on which the respondent has 'built his shop is part of the same land transferred to the appellant by Gerva:s. This being the position it is now upto the respondent to come into terms with thepresent ownr of the land, the appellant. The appeal is allowed. Ihe appellant is to have his costs to and from Mwanza. A (v.. •. (N. Se MNZAVAS AC-JtflYGE. MWANZA, 18/6/70.