19960624 TZHC Mwanza
The appellant failed to prove ownership of the disputed shamba, as she admitted her husband, not herself, bought the land, and evidence showed the respondent sold only his own portion.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19960624 TZHC Mwanza
- Parties
- Appellant: Susana Nyinyimbe; Respondent: Mohamed Idd
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 24 June 1996
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Land Ownership, Burden of Proof, Sale of Land
- 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
Susana Nyinyimbe
Appellant
Mohamed Idd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant proved ownership of the disputed shamba
- 2 Whether the respondent encroached upon the appellant's land
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant failed to prove ownership of the disputed shamba, as she admitted her husband, not herself, bought the land, and evidence showed the respondent sold only his own portion.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Appellant to pay costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
. ,. j ' • /re- ~ ~r /4#n. IN THE HIGH COURT O:F' TANZANIA AT ~'!WANZA (PC) CIVIL APPEAL NOo 246 OF 1992 (From the decision of the District Court of Musoma· in Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1992 and Original Civil Case Noo 106 of 1991 of the Primary Court of Musoma.) SUSANA NYINYIMBE oooooooeaoooooaooooo APPELLANT Versus MOHAMED IDD oooooooeooe&eooeeeoecooo RESPONDENT JUDGMEl\1T ·WJNYERA 1 J • The appellant was the plaintiff in the Urban primary, Court. She sued the respondent for recovery of a piece of a shamba in Nyakato area of Musoma t~wnship. It was her case that she had bought the suit shamba from one Khamis Sagara whe•isnow deade To her surprise the respondent claimed C'.'lwnership of it and sold the same to a:n unkn~wn person. In his defence the respondent stated he too had bought a piece of a shamba from the same vendor, Khamis Sagara. That it was the appellant 1 s husband who bought the shamba from Khamis Sagara and not the appellant. The vend~; fixed a boundary between the appellant's husband and the respondent.· It.was therefore his (respondent) ,wn piece of shamba which he sold and not that of the appellant. The trial magistrate with his assessors unanimously found the appellant did not prove her case and dismissed the suit with costs. The unsuccessfully appealed to the District court, she now appeals to this court. In para 2 of her memorandum of appeal the appellant admits what was said in the trial that it was her husband who bought the shamba from Khamis Sagara and not herself, likewise she was not present during the purchase . transaction. For that reasen'' she did not know the boundary the vendor , had fired between her husband and the respondent. The people who knew the boundary told the court the respondent had sold his own piece and did not encr.oach upon the appellant's side. I don't see what mistakes the lower pr:.,~ / (:"1 ~ - courts··haa,"inaa~. I dismiss the appeal with costs, ,A" ': • '· . -:</\\ ,.,,;-/ :\<i"\. \1,.\\ ' , (:> I ~- f ... . >.-;q, \\Ht,, t ,,, ' ~ ·_.~ \ SGD: F.A. MUNYERA~ ~- ",f; \ ~ • ''\, J\ • ./1 : 2!· 1 JUDGE \ ~ \,.ti; .. ~·,:.,\ }-:,.1 \ v',!. .. .,·· -• . \ \ •1v \, • • : .,.,:,;.~ ,,-,• •• •t; ... ,- 24/6/96 - \ ~-~~ I·-hereby ce-rti:t:y' that this is a true copy of the original. ' ' - .. - -· ·-~-., - ~~---~ ., . CJ ~- . - n 10.jJJ,u~k- . ~ICT RE\8-STRAR MWANZA