LAND CASE NO

© THE JUDICIARY OF TANZANIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UNITED REPUBLIC OFT ANZANIA AT KIGOMA LAND CASE NO. 2 OF 2023 THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCES OF KIGOMA .. COMPLAINANT/ APPELLANT /APPLICANT/ PLAINTIFF VERSUS 1. BITALE VILLAGE COUNCIL 2. KIBONDO DISTRICT COUNCIL 3. HONORABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL RESPONDENT/ DEFENDANT JUDGMENT A. K. RWIZILE, J, The plaintiff, the Roman Catholic Church Diocese of Kigoma has been locked in this litigation with Bi tale Village Council fighting for a piece of land approximated at 15 acres. The land is situated at Bitale Village of Kibondo District. Undisputed facts, the culmination of which, is this case, trace its roots when the so-called white fathers- missionaries of the Roman Catholic Church appeared to apply for land for religious services from local leaders. Given a piece of land now in dispute, a primary school, the church and residential houses were built in the same premises and trees planted. Following nationalization policy in the 1970s, the village government took ownership of the school and land in terms of defence case. For years thereafter, both the church and the village government worked peacefully until in the recent passed when there was a need to build a bigger and modem school under UNICEF sponsorship. It is this time when ownership of the disputed land resurfaced. The church moved for its land back and it was successfully. The village council returned ownership of the land to the original owner. It would appear, no sooner had the same regained its land, than the uprising started. A section of village members were not happy with the plaintiffs return in the disputed land, the conflict escalated into chaos. The government authorities intervened for the sake of piece. Not amused, the plaintiff decided to file this action claiming jointly and severally from the defendants the following reliefs; 1. A declaratory judgement and decree that the suit parcel of unsurveyed land located at Bitale Village and ward in Kibondo district in Kigoma Region and the entire state thereon are lawfully owned by the plaintiff 2. An order for permanently restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants, their agents and/ or servants from interfering with the plaintiffs ownership of the suit land 3. An order that the costs of the suit be paid to the plaintiff by the defendants 4. An order granting the plaintiff any other relief as it will be deemed fit and equitable by this honourable court. Page. 1 The plaintiffs evidence conflicts the defence case. It was Dwl who testified that the dispute land is Bitale Primary school which is owned by the government. According to Charles Mshita Muguta it was built in 1954. The church also was built in the premises first and then the school. According to him, the same was later nationalized, to became property of the government. His evidence was further that the church was given another land which is 2 acres, and it was in 1974/1975. It was his evidence that the plaintiff vacated the land since then. Dw2 supported Dw 1 and added that, he was born at Bitale, went to school at Bi tale in 1968 in the disputed land. According to him, there was a school, church and private persons in four families. He said, pupils planted a range of trees to include eucalyptus. His evidence clearly says the land belongs to the government of the village. There was a road in between the land. In 1972/73, three school buildings were added and two teachers' accommodation. They were built by the village government and the contractor was an Indian man called Sadru. In 1974/75, there came village operation all who were living in that land were removed and given other land, while the plaintiff was given 2 acres. According to him, the land was never given to the plaintiff. He said, it was not true that, it was done in 2014. The evidence of Dw l and Dw2 was supported in material terms by Dw3 and Dw4. On his part, Dw3 was of the evidence that the land was property of the village. He said, the problem started in 20 I 4 when Pw2 was a leader of the village and started the motion for the villagers to return the disputed land to the plaintiff. In his evidence, the village resisted, and a meeting was held where the plaintiff largely lost the vote since the majority of the villagers did not accept that move. Dw4 who was also a leader in 2014 and was of the evidence in support of the rest in the defence side. He said, he was among those who resisted the pressure from Pw2 to return the disputed land to the plaintiff. In his evidence, he said, he was forced to write exhibit Pl. He said, Pw2 and the acting District executive Director forced him to give back the land to the plaintiff in terms of exhibit Pl. That is why later, there was a meeting as stated by Dw3 that voted against the resolution. According to him, the land in dispute belongs to the village government as clearly shown in the exhibit DA 1. It can be deduced from the summarized evidence for both sides that, there is no dispute that sometimes before independence, the disputed land belonged, in all to the local leaders. It is because based on the evidence, which is not disputed by either side, missionaries applied for land and were given the same. The land given to them was plainly for religious and other social services. That is why the school was built and managed by the same people. The record shows as well that the ownership of the dispute land in my view is brought by the religious division within the village of Bitale. It was testified by the defence that sometimes in 2014, the plaintiffs witnesses who are catholic wanted the land to be returned to the plaintiff. There are two documents that form the axis of this case. It is exhibit Pl and DAL Central to the two exhibits is Dw4, one Boniface Kishongoli Ndimiye. In exhibit Pl, on 19th November 2014, he wrote to the Parish Priest in respect of the disputed land that following the village meeting dated 6th November 2014, which referred to the resolution of the village meeting dated 1st September 2013, it was ruled out that since the land belonged to the plaintiff, it should be given back. The same letter and minutes of the meeting were attached and copied to the District Executive Director and the District Land officer. The minutes, it is shown were signed by Dw4 who stood as the secretary and the Village executive officer, and it was also signed by the chairman. This letter was received by the district council authorities on 21st November 2014. This means, the document was official and duly Page. 3 To what reliefs are the parties entitled to Having determined the first issue in the manner that is shown, the parties are entitled to the following reliefs; 1. That the judgement is entered in favour of the plaintiff 2. That the defendants have no right in the disputed land. 3. Costs to follow the event. Dated at KIGOMA ZONE this 27th of September 2024. A. K. RWIZILE, J JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT Page. 5