19871204 TZHC Dar es Salaam

IN THE HIGH COUR.~ OF TAN.·ZANIA AT DAR ES ;SALAAM t1 ~~ ~ /1 • l.Jom_j -\ , (PC) CIVIL APPEAL H0/{0 OF 1986 . (From Origi;Aa.1 CiV'il Case_No.7 of i986 of the Primazy Court of Ru:fiji District at Kibiti) s.Atiii.1 sA1n MKuNmm.u••••• ; •••• ,. ~ •••••••••••••• ~ •• ii"~APPELLANT . . . NDiPmE ?~U®I•··••·••··•··•·••4••••·•••···•··••·•••RESPOND~~ ' -. . . JUDGEMENT· It was not in dispute betor(l this Court, nor .in the court of first instance a:id tJ:io distriot court, that the disputod land alwl:\ts belonged to the appellant. ln 1979 the appellant allowed th.e respondent, his father in law, to enter and cultivate the disputed. pieoc of land. The respondent cultivated the la.nd for seven yea:re, planting pennanent crops-oranges, lime, oa.shewnut and banana trees, After seven yea.rs.had elapsed the appellant demanded the land from the respondent arguing that the respondent had tres- passed on the land. Their dispute wa.s heard by the local Conciliation Board. As the Boa.rd failod to raconoile tho inrties the appellant sued the respondent/defendant in UtetG PrimaJ:7 Court claiming the land. The prima;ry court found that the appellant/ plaintiff' was entitlod to ha.ve the disputed land ba.olc from· the rospondcnt on condition that ho pa_ys tho respondent shs.10,000/- as oo~ensation for his efforts in developing tho land. Dissatisfied.by the decision of the primary court tho appellant/ . plaintiff appealed to the district court·he I was again. detea.ted,. ,· Still dissatisfied he has appealed to this court~ .. On the facts as :f'ound by the two courts below it is oloa.r that the appellant/~laintitt gratuitously allowed his father in la.w, the respondent/defendant, to enter and cultivate the land. As ± have already m~ntioned above the· respondent ~rttered the land., plo~liod. it and planted permanent orops. From the facts a..s depo~~. in the lower courts th~ respondent was the lessee; lthO in land law, is c~lled tenant at wiil. Aa a tanant at will he possessed no certain ur sure estate on the disputed land• Having no sure esfaite tho r<-spondent could be re~oved from the estate by- the h,ppci1lant, the owner of the landt at an:, time. 2/ ••••• - 2 - • Ho~evor suoh a tenani as is the respondent, has a right· to emblcmehts. And as it wall ,hold b;r this Court in Pli.SKAZIA d/_o BWAHAMA v ALOYS CYRILO (1967) BCD 117 the respondent is entitled. to eomponsa.tion for improvements he has made on the lande Ai though it is not clear from thoi judgements oil: the lowe:r court~ how the amount of shs.10,000/- coinponaation ~~s arrived at, I eee·no good reason to interfere bearing in mind that the disputed land is, according to the judgement o~ the distriot.court, about one acre and is planted with permanent crops., Tho· appellant should underst;;ind that al though he is entitled to have the land ra-'rurned to him the law requires· him to pey compe- nsation for the improvements on the land by the~oW-.d..~ The law c ~ t allow him to reap what he has not planted. The a.ppella.:1t to have his 1, returned. to him after he ha.a pa.id f. to tho r~nd.ent shs.10,000/- as compensation as ordered by the lower courts. In the event this s®ond appeal fails with costs in this and the lower courts. DAR ES SAW.M, 4th booembe~~1987.