19970206 TZHC Dar es Salaam
The appellant only purchased the banda and not the surrounding land; the respondent's original occupation and subsequent court declaration as lawful occupier prevail.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19970206 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Parties
- Appellant: Sofia Raj Abu; Respondent: Anania Mlela
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 6 February 1997
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Lawful Occupation, Unregistered Land, Ownership Dispute
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Sofia Raj Abu
Appellant
Anania Mlela
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant is the lawful occupier of the disputed unregistered land at Tandale Sokoni
- 2 Whether the respondent's prior occupation and subsequent dispossession by TANU affects his rights
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant only purchased the banda and not the surrounding land; the respondent's original occupation and subsequent court declaration as lawful occupier prevail.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Respondent declared lawful occupier of the disputed land
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL .APPEAL N0.23/95 SOFIA RAJ ABU •••••••o , .APPELLANT . . . . . . . . . . . . . ·• Versus ANANIA MLELA •••••••••.•••••.•••••• RESPONDENT J U D G ME ,N T Ttis is an appeal from the judgment of the Resident M~l• strate's Court, at Kisutu, Dar es Salaam, whereby the res- pondent was declared the lavrful oc·cupier of a piece of unre• gisteretl land at Tandale Sokoni, · Dar es Salaam, as ggainst the appE:llant who had institued the suit giving rise to th~, appeal in the court below claiming to be the la~ful occupant of the fiece of land. " Th: appellant said he had bought a.banda 11 and all the surroun::cing area, which area includes the disputed land, from the thee TAl\llJ. The trial court found that it was only the ".banda II which ·he bought gnd not the surrounding area as ·well • .The resf ondent' s case was that he had been the original occu.- pant of the area, as from the 1960s _. -, Then the then TANU asked him to surrender possession of it to TANlJ for the lat•e~ to biild. an officer there. He said TANU promised to find him j another plot. He said he agreed but when TAi'\TU's promise for another plot could not be realised, he decided to go back to his lard. Jemadari Salum (DW .4) resisted hd.s _re-eniry onto the lanj_ but the respondent took hiin to court where he defe- ated DW4 and he was declared the l~wful occupier of the land. The appsllant then instituted the suit from which this appeal eomes bst .he also lost and the respondent was against declared the rightful occupier of the land. Acc)rding to the judgment of the trial court, the suit lru c is bes.ide the 'Banda I which the appe~lant said he bought f1om TANU. ~I ll. •,{~- . C •.ft " ., ., l j,. • I u,, -t, . .• l~,' ~t,,.,.-... . • .' ~ ~- . , ,. . 'l '' - ~ • ' I , . ; .. " ·• •. 't <. J " \I 'l 0 6 '-· .... -~ t i~ ,, :