19940427 TZHC Dodoma 1

:t11 nrE IITGil COll~ OF 111Jrl..lNLl (PC) CIVIL - 4T DODOMt:i. lJ.'P";:;!;L NO. 1$ OF 1994 . (Fi-o-m the d~is;i.M 0£ tb.e Distri-0-t; Ootl:M' <:ff 1Co.od.oa, at. Kt:>nd.oa 1/1 Civil .'.;.rp0al Noo 49 of ·1993 J3efore J;I.JY.t. Mang' ana. - Distz-iot :Magistrate 5..J:DI _.:..:rmmLJrr r,IDOID.:.. •• ~. o .JJ>~ VeI'SUB. S..;J.UMtJ OM.:.lU r,ll.FIT.t........ .,." .. ., ._;:l"":S?ON.DENT J u _a M DJL 't. T'.11-s ce,~te staxted at Cb..anclar.w 1'Ta.l---d Tri~ in Ktu\doa District l-lhere the xe@Ol'r:ei,.i; Sc.linu Oma;ri Mafita ,w,s chai.. ged ni th the offence of either crj.r.unal t·,;0spc.·,ss or forcible en°b."Y into the appellant's lando He was s·sntenoed. to a :fi.1-3. .t.:u7ieved by that clacis-ion the said :respond/mt Salimu O~i tafi ta lodg11rl 3.11: . appeal -to Goima :P:i;'iocrj" ~ ill. l{;end.oa Dist:;.:i,ot. Tho l'riLJ.arY Court inst~a& of rogistcril1£· tlic appeal, asked tho i-os11ondont to filo a frosh cjyil suit and ho. did $04 Tho respondent won tho caso. 'a.nd ,-ms dccle.rod t..;o lo,w:ful o,-m.or .of the lc.nd in d.isput'c. N81-r tho ar,~o~l:ic:iu Se..id .ti.tb.umani inJoirl2. lod,sod an a.:ppcaJ. to Kondoa. District CoUi.·t end it was dismissed and hone:) this second appeal. T'.i10 learned District lk,gistrn:to posed tho question t.erto -whether it w,s proj_"1u.i:' for- the Primary Cou.r·t to entertain a frosh civil suit instead' i,f rcf;i.st01·inf; tho 0,pp~al vfu.ich the ;;:-ospondont had intended to filoo Tho DistricJ. Court held that it 1ras not proper and di.roctod tho Prim~y Court to qu~sh tho proceedings of the lfr:,1:d Tribunal as 1-k.rd Trib'Ut'lals have no jurisdictio.:i. to· hoar matters conc01.~ing lc.nd disiutcP • In uy considered view t:10 100:cnod District N.-.{5istre.tc had c:rrod., 'Iho ce-..so at tho 1-t2.;;:-d Tribunal was a crir.~al c::-.ao and that is vlhy tho ros:i_:iondont was :~i."l.oc. ..-,. It was not a civil suit ·I).· rooming tb.c adjudication of ownorship of l2..'":l11 It is true thc,t Fc1.·cl 'l'r"'..:.'~~~1als hn:ve, no ju:ris..:.:L.::tion tn ~.icar. civil s1,i.i tB_ col1cro•ning d.is1,utos over 01.·n:cxship of land$ Tiow<.rvor they b.:::.vc ju:r'iscl..ic :ion to l1c2.r c::..•::.;:~incl cc.sos cf crinincl trosrc,ss rnd fo1'cible on t:;_'jr o So tho :J:l:i.'i:::::x·y Court rrr:-,s rijlt to onto:;..•tain tho suit ovai· oi,morship of l~ndo · T,10 ariru:.l by tho rcsronclont ·1;:c,s :d[).:.tl;y- rcc,ci:r'cle;d by tho P:.:i.;J8T,V ... . So tb.o District CoUi.·t 1r2.s 1t.L'ong to direct tho riL1c.;ry Court to ·q_uash tho re1.'occod.ings of. tho 1To;;:-d T.dl)unalo 2 - ~ j;'Cgards tJlo mur!ts of tho. ~Ilo.olt I am - ~oomont -rit.b. 'both tho d.ocision of the tl'iGl court o.nd thc. D:i..striot- .ooui:-t. T.b.o dispUto was over o. bou:ndnry of ndjo.ccnt :r,ioocs of lc-nd 01-111.od by tJlo ].')i=;rtics. 'lli.c bounc:l2ry is in a fo:::n of c, rctl.10 1:t a:;;r,ccw:-s originally the path "rTaS · streict1t e.nd fi!:9-tho ~x,undery caused no difficult. Rowcvbr recently the path loft its original cour59 eJl.Cl. -went in,t.P '1llo ros-i~t.ki ~ < J i . ~ _about sovo.D_Sto~• 'µlo a:_;_;J?Ollapt hci.s dvcidod to toke that land ·which o~ig:L'1.ally 1)o_lonGccl to ·b.o rcs:rondo.nt bcfo:co tho path chweod ool.11:'so. Su:;:•oly tho a:9r,olJ r·nt is on tho vironc. Tho boundc:r-J should be L'I. stl-2,ight 1inc e,e , ~ th~ ,cdci.ml Dc,:th,. "'ill.or~ ~tJ;i. ~ 't;.1~~llie1:r'W Court wore rigb.t In tho c J;::mt tho a}?poal fails. Tho. ardor W tho District CoUl"'t dirooting the l'r:Ll~~ Cour-t; -t,e, ,qu..?Ah t.l.14 : ; . ~ ~ Q.f tho :-1eJ;'d ll..i.,ibunal. is hcxoby sot asi Lo. Tho apr:,oal is disL·ia.sod. .ls th~ l)c;.l'tios did not a})r~a oa.ol:l. part::r to 1)oar its own costs of this. a.J/DQil. ~ ~~•-· -=~-=-·:=_~-1.I '\/,- 1_/ -~ ~ '-,/ ·.''"',•., ;\--~-·· ..- .,,, ~-· ,--·--·------·---.i._ (J.L. rr~:ius;Jrr..:.) J-ODGD 27 ,4.1994 Kond.oa Di·1t~iot Court for roadinc over to tho r~t:i.~ ~ 27.4.1994 ' , .