19921022 TZCA Mwanza2

.,; 0 / IN TI-IB COUllT OF APPEAL OF TJIJJZJ\NL''l AT MiT./1.NZA ( CORAM: OM.ti.R 2 J .A., llAM/illRl:JH, J .lu 9 And MI.IJZAV !S 9 J .A. ) CIVIL .tJ?l'EiU, NOo 25 OF 1992 · llii~WEEN DID.AS RirTiJ{l:XILE J:J.i!D 3 OTREl-:iS. o. o • o • • • • • • • • .,Ji.Pl'ELLAJ.ITTS /Jill I. THOMAS Mi\.TOIIJJ)/.:i:IB •• G • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • b • • ~ • • • • RE3:P<mDEI.IJT (Appcc.1 from tho Decision of tho · High Court of To.:nzr.nin. a.t :Mwa.nza.) (Mwo.lusnnya1 J.;) da.ted tho 2nd day of lfovernbor, 1989 in (PC) Civil Agpeo.1 No. 136 of 1988 . •• JUDGMENT OF TII8 COill1T R11.Mf.DHANI 2 J .A,,: 'Ehis is another p:..•otro.ctod li tiga.tion ever inhori-lia.nco of c. sh...·,mba between o.n unclo, tho rospondont, c..nd his four nophcws,: tho · a.J;)pollc..nts. Tho dispute wo.s filed in tho Primary Court of N"shnmba. in ~1ulobo. District on 5/6/1986, · Tho pc,;ctios found their way to tho Mu1obo. District Court, tho High Com·t ct :Mvr2J1za. o.nd now in this Coui·t. It is a.pproprinto to.give a. concise o.ccount of the f~cts loo.ding up to this 1i tigation, Th0ro wa.s n nnn by the name of . .. Mn.t.ondane who had six sons and upon his doc.th his land was distributed c.mong them. Four of 't;hoso c.ro knovm to h:wo died by tho time this dispute uro.so. Tho fif'«th brothor 1 Celestin Kikug'USi, J:lo.s boon presumed deoo as nothing hns boon how.rd of him since he wont to Ugnnda in

1932. So only one of tho six sons is a.live ond this is the prosont :respondent, Thomes M.J.t ondano o Two of 'tho docoa.sod brothers y Rwakakilo and Freno is 1 c.ro sur-vivod by two 0ons ca.ch. Those four survivors nr0 th0 present a.ppalla.nts. Tho othor tb.ra.a.. b.1."0thors; Nshuli, Colost.in nnd Kt1I'.'.:i.ba., r. ..../2 .. ... 2 - died chil~loss. Tho plots of lend belonging to two of thorn, Nshuli Olid Celestin, hnvo boon inherited by tho :rospondont. -In 1982 whon Karnbo. diod the clnn co1.,1.ncil decided to divide his shnraba D.L1ong tho appellonts. This decision nggrioved tho respondent who rognrded himself t to bo the solo heir o.s the remaining brother. But more particulnrly he founded his claim upon a. will of Kc..r:iba. It wns also in evidence that ho had twico rodoomod tho sharaba. in dispute for Shs .130/= and Shs., 70/= during tho lifetime of Karo..ba.ci !;gain it was not in dispute that ho ha.s boon inc continuous possession of the same since 1966 when 1{..,-u~nba. omigrc..tod to Komo Island to tho timo th0 dispute arose. Tho ronsoning of tho clan council in coming to tho docision thoy did was plnin G.nd sii:1plo 1 ThGy folt th;.ot since tho rospondont nlrcady had tho plots of tho two brothors who had diod childless., thon this. plot in dispute belonging i;o tho third child.loss 1)rothor, should go to the sons of the othor two doo.d brothers. But tho respondent

was not moved by thnt philonthropy1 Ho plucked off tho troos plo.ntod to r.1nrk tho boundaries of tho plot of on.ch end did not abandon tho shnLlba. Thn.t sont--tho . I o,p:pclla.nts to tho Primc.ry Court. It was docidod tho.t both parties wore ontitlod to inherit the sha.mb2, a.nd thGt tho rospondont sho'i?ld ho..vo a. lnrgor share been.use, not I t only wns ho o. p1~incipo.l heir, ho had rodoorJod the shambn and had soon to its upkoop. It was ordered tho..t tho 1:10,ttor should go back to tllo clan council for a pro;por dis~ibution. Tho rospondont xms dissatisfied with tho.t wd nppcnlcd, Tho District Court uphold tho decision of tho Priri1ary Court and added th~t a.s tho ~ospond0nt hnd not boon given a. hoaxing a.t tho clmi council ho should bo allowed to pc..rticipc..to in its doliborc..tionso Tha.t ago.in did not a p ~ . tho respondent n.nd .he ~--t.a ..:tbo. High Court. ·- . .__, 3 ' Mwa.lus.:myo., J • found ·Uui.t tho shambo. belonged to tho rvs'pondo11t, Tho loo.mod judge concurred with tho findings of tho two lower courts that tho will produced by tho respondent was but n slmmi It violated tho roquj.romonts of a. will as proscribed by GoN• 436 of ~0/9/196"3, ~ Ko..ra.bo. wns undisputodly illi tcrato his will had to be attested. to by two ola.n members a.nd two non-olo;n parsons. This wns not done~ However, tho court found tha.t the proporty in the sha.mbn vostod

on r •' tho respondent boca.uso he hc..d rcdooraod it. That finding was come upon on tho authority of p.:i.ra.graph 574 of Cory and Hartnoll. Tho l0c.rncd judge decided that tho slmmbn belonged to tho respondent sinoo 1/12/1966. From that finding Mwaluso.nyn, J • went on to doclG.re tho suit by the o.ppcllnnts to lui.ve boon time bo.rrod under tho provisions of i ton 6 Ci$ tho schedule to tho Custom2,;ry L.,:w (Liai tdion of Procoodj:ngs) Rules, G.lif I J11/1964 since 12 yon.rs hu.d oln:psod. Tho appellants a.re contesting that judg1acnt on throe points of law which wore nrguod bofo;;o us by Mro Rwoyeoomu, loarni:)d ndvocnto. First, lVIr. Rwl:lycr.10.r,ru. scid t.ha.t n person who rodooms n mortgagi3d sha.mbn. docs not a.hmys bocomo tho owner of thn t slmmba. Ho propounded ,that there aro two typos of mor~go.gos in Ho.ya. customary lnw. Ono type gives rise to tho ownership by the riadoomor of tho mortgngod property bu l; tho other docs not. Ho o.rguod that tho two mortgages in this case wore of tho second typo and thoroforo the shn.mba rorao.inod to be tho property of Kcrn.bn. until his doc.th in 1982. 1w his second point 1 a.nd arising frora tho first, Mr. Rwcyor.:nmu. oontendod that tho possession of tho r0spondont b0cnm0 o.dvc:t'So from 1~82 and so, :~ continued, whon the suit uo.s filed in 1986 the limitc.tion period ho.d not oxpircd. Lastly, :r-r.u.~o Rwoyomnrrru.

submitted th2,,t o.s tho sho.mbo. did not bolong to tho :respondent and ns Karc.bn. died. intosto.to then ~ oouncil wns tho proper cu:thori.ty to dispose it. 9 ••• /4 4 Tho respondent wns roprosonted by one of his four sons, .Alfred Thomas, who hnd o.. power of atto.rrtoy. In all f2..i.r.n0ss ho could not cono to g:rips with tho points of lnw raised. H0 neroly repeated points of fact. 1fo ngreo with Mi."• Rwcyer.mmu that there are two types of mor~gnges in Haya. customc.ry law. That p;::;;.•ng.ra.ph 574 which lliwnluso.nya, J • relied upon from Cory o.nd Hnrtnoll provides as fallows: "If tho plcntation has boon pledged on tho condition that it will become tho prop::,rty of tho crodi tor fo.iling the ropo.ymont of tho debt within a.:n agrood time, n rolntive hns tho riHht to r0doom it, even a:ftor tho time hns expired, ns a.n invalid snlo, in which co.so it follows that tho pla.ntntion becomes the proporty of the mo.n who rcd-;oms it. 11 Thero ore two conditions h0roo First 1 thoro mu.st be a timo stipulated for tho repn.ynent of tho loan. Socond 1 upon failure to ropny 1 it raust be stipulated thc..t tho propGrty becor:ios tt.o.t of tho creditor. If tho two conditions nro □issins then tho plantation fo..lls under the _provisions of pv..rcgrcphs 572 nnd 573 which so.yi 11 5720 A plc.ntc,tion W1dor family tenure may bo plodgod 1 but e,;ny relc.tivo Lm.y at any tirn.o, ovon in tho

absence of the o.-mcr, rcd.0011 it., "573. If r.· 1·olc.tive doos' so 1 tho payr.icmt of the money docs not givo hin possession of tho pla.ntction. Tho redemption money is duo to hin c,s a common dobt by tho ownoro" To us tho rationclo is very clonr. Undor paragraph 574 tho l"olo.tive who rodeoms tho plnntntion stops into tho shoes of tho crodi tor, If tho crodi tor could bocomo tho o,mor of the shnmba thon tho rolctivo could bo so too. But vnd.:.ir tho sucond typo of nortgngo whoro tho crodiiior ca.n nav-or bocor,1O tho ownor of tho plc.nto.tion but is oorcly on-ti tlod to his debt, tto...-i..- J. relative who rodeoms cann.o:t.J).c..vo a ti tlo but a. debt. •••• /5 1,. 5 In tho present ccse the two mortgage doods, thnt of 26/9/1966 ~ Exl::...D5 end trot of 1/12/1966 - Exh.D.6, do not hnve tho two.conditions stipulatod under po.rngro.ph 574. Exhibit D.5 so,yss "l.Vlimi Ko.ro.bo, 112.wokn rohnni migorJba y2.t1gu k:wo. Vonnnt sohorJU yo. 1:.:iigomba k:wn shilingi r.,lia nojn tholc.thini ( 130/= ). Ni tclco.po1x:tn poso, ni tamrudishio, o.ondoko." Thon Ex:hibit D.6 is couched in those taros: "Mini Kcrc..bc. nc.woka roho.ni sohomu yn raigor:1bc. kwn Lr:mront Rutotozn nk:c.te ndizi za kuln nn ndizi ka.li., lunonipn Shs.70/- (sabini) siku yoyoto nikipo.tn nintu,udishio zclco tuna o.ondoke kwonyc sho.nbo. lo.ngu." It is evident fror.i tho two doods tlmt none of ther,1 contc.in tho

two terms which would enti tlo one who rodooms to be the 01mor of tho plod.god plcritation ?a provided by po.rn.grnph 574. It is most unfortunate tlmt none of tho lower cou:cts, not even the High Court, bothered to lmvo tho deeds t:rcnslc;,tod f:rot1 Kihayn. Tho lco..rned judgo ci tod Mn.rt in s/ o Bikonyoro v o Coles tin s/ o Kaokoln (1968) H.C.D. n. 87 by Cross, J. and Gabriel s/o Nzizuln v. Rooza d/o Mu.:yungi (1968) H.C.D. n. 126 .by mstcfo., J. (ns ho then was). Those a.,~oisions a.re sound bocnuse the fnots foll squa.roly on po.rag-rnph 574. Thus the :rcsponclont did not l)ocor.10 tho avmor of tho shnmba in dispute because ho had rodo<:med it twioo o.s ovidenoed by Exh,D,5 o.nci 6. Tho shc..i:i.ba roranined thnt of Ifurabo, a.nd upon his doati•: rovortod to fanily tonuro to be inhori tod. For the so.ko of completeness tho shc.nbo., did not even bocome of tho respondent booc.uso ho hns boon in continuous possession ;f;;.~on 1966 ·whon Karalx1 left for. Kono Isln.nd. Pro~n.grnph 511 of Cory cnd..HD.rtnoll provides: ••.•• /6 6 ".A.ctuo.l ocoupr.tion of land eonfors no ti tlo, no rJu.ttor how 1~ it- lu!B boon occupiod. 11 , It follows from tho above oxposi tion, a.nd as· properly submitted by ]1i:1 Rwcyorannu 9 thc.,t thoro was no' question of lim tation, .The occupation by tho rosponclont boQ.'.1lilO ad.verso to tho interests of tho fo.mily yb.cn Knrabn diod in 1982 and tho

suit was filed in 1986. It is c.,lso evident from tho o.1)ovo holding that the respondent CGll110i; and is not onti tled to any extra. clc..iB on the shambn because of 112.ving rodoenod it or of long possession. For rodoraption he is .enti tlcd to a. rofund of the monoys ho had pnid mid for possession n:ncl t!1orcforo the upkeep of tho slw..1-:1bo., ho onjoyod the p~cocceds from the so.E10 a.s wc:.s proporly hold by tho clan council. Wo co□o now to tho o.ruciul oa.ttcr for determination. .t,s. Ifurnbc died ohildl.:3ss and intostnto who ns between tho portios has o. bo-ttor clc..ira of inheri tnnco? Cory and Hc:rtnoll give thxoo grndcs of hairs. I'arngrnph 2 of Cory and Hortnoll sny: "Throe gru.dos of hoirs proper a.re recognisods A. TEE !IDSIKA. prir.mry heix Bo TIITI 1MJNUK.fi.. - sccondory hail.' Co THE KYJ~GJ:..TI • r.unor hoixs 1.1 Pnro.£p.~o.ph 3 proviclos who c.ro tho KtlJSIKJ,.. Whe,t is rolcvnnt io the present co.so reads as follows, "•. • Tho ]lfusike:. of o. mm w~10 loaves no dcscend.:mts in direct lino is one of his brothers•••" So, horc tho rospondon:t is .dofinc.toly t:10 Musika of ~b°f'-·,,. __ _ .-......._ _. __ -------~- 7 Was tho clcn council wrong to coao to the decision they did.? We cannot c.nswor thct in tho affirma.tivo. Thero is n NOTE to po.re.graph 3 which is vor-;1 eloquent end oporo.tos as equity to soften the vigou.rs of law. The lJGrE

goos: "Unless a 1:,o.n hG.s sons his :LrnJavcI1lc property is inheri tod. b;sr one of his relatives who is chosen by fnEri.ly council. Tl1erofore, if he lms brothers, the oldest need not necesso;rily inherit. For examr)le: If there is c, h;:othel' who hns none o:c only a. sr.m.11 plc-..ntntion he mo.y be chosen to inherit. If the plantation is capable of providing two families with livelihood. it mc.y be divided l:>et.-reen the "two roll.ltivos. On this choson relntives's death the pluntntion is inherited by his heirs in the usual wo.y." In the ~resent case the respondent nlreo.dy has his own plot out of the six into which the sho..rabo. of the old r.futondane was divided. He also ho..s tho two perts which ha.d b0longed to his two doc0nsod childless brothers. Thus ho has three parts out of six which he will po.ss on to his four sons. On tho other l".i.2lld tho four o.ppollants, who a.re the MU'S of tho other two brothers of tho rospondont, have only o. plot for onch pr;ir. So as between the \ ros:pondent,and tho appellants -tho lntto1.. J.mvo sr.m,llor pJ.a.ntutions then tho former n.nd j;his NOI'E to paragraph 3 wc.s mo2.:X1t for th.em• lifo wonder the clan council docidod the way it did. Infect that principle of equity tra..11sconds the P.w.yn customary lc.w. For cxaraple, in tho division of 12nd po;re,gr.::i,ph 75 provides that "tho r,fu.sikc. shall i.""J.horitt 9nough lD.nd

to Pl"OVido bir,1 -and his family · _wi tl1 a. livelihood, Tho interests of tho othor heirs aro o.-vory socoruL'"'..L----y•·considorntion 11 1 · Rowovor, thoro is n NOI'E agQ,in DJDOlio:cating tho hardships vihich could bo--c.cusod.:. •.,, ./8 .. ------· - -- .•. ---- 8 pro.ctioo distr:i..buti.on is affoctod by 11 In many diffqrent circumstcncos, for instance in tho en.so of one of tho lessor heirs hnvin3 n largo fanily j ho rJa.y be grc:.ntod a ldgor she.re then is rGc.lly his just duo 9 .~." life nro of the firr:1 Ol)inion that tho clcn council wa,s justified in oi'riving o.t tho decision thoy did end dicl not contravono tho H~ro. ous~y la.w cild ito equity~ But wo.s tho respondent conderrmod unhoc.rd? That was tho concw.Tent finding of the High Coud and the District C0U1.~to .·. .llS such, and 2.S this is o. third appeal, we cnnnot mako a factual finding though that fact could bo argued one wny or tho othor. Be it as it nny, wo take it a,s proved that the respondent wo.s absent fror;i tho clD.n council of 17/10/19820 Who.tis tho offoct of that? We co.n say two things here. Ono both tho Primary Court and the District Court gc..vo orders tha.t this rnattor be roturnod to the clan councilo Tho District Court wo.s explicit "that a.pp,3llro1t /J!p.c respondent nii} be 13ivcn c..n opportunity to dofond himself",. But on both occa.sions tho i"0spondont did not f,.wour tha.t and

decided to a.ppea.l. Info.ct in his ground five of appocl -'~() tho :ligh Court ho said iri relevont po.rtss "• •• ilibo.inike. jinsi wc::naukoo wnlivyo- di:i;>otosha. ku.toa. mgao wo. shnr.iba. la mnrehemu bile, kunishirikisha • ;. • mo.ho.kama zn chini zisingengizo. tena. kifc:nyiko kikao kingino cha uk:oo wake. ti ho..wa.po wcngino tofGuti no. ho.o ,..;,;" So tho rospondont wonted tho m,'.lttor to bo settled by ·the courts whore he hns 1xion given n hoaxing. ~.d:1..is is who.t wo int.::md to do. Th0 socond...L1Cttor is that we arc nlso of the opinion tha.t it is a. futile exercise to 1~turn this dispute to tho clan council to lot then observe that cnrdinc.1 principle of na.turo.l justice. 1lJ3 tho respondent ha.s boon givon a. hoa.ring in foux difforont forums a.nd cs ••• /9 , .. ,, l, ◄ :l r.., , II . 9 . the decision of the clc.n council is oQ.ui ta.l)le following tho Ho.ya. loiwl wo ndopt it o.s our 01m. Tho shnrnba of Kc.robe.. to bo inb.eri tcd by tho appollc.nts. We order that the clnn council in cbl'l.junction with tho PriLltlI'y Court ~istrnto of JY!sha.□ba to p:.1.1·ti tion tho sho.r.ibo. o.s between l. . tho first and tho socond appellants on tho one ha.nd, and tho third o.nd tho fourth appollnnts on, tho othtr. It is in ovidonco, ns already said, tlui.t tho respondent had rodoemed tho shambc by paying Shso200/=• It has boon .claimed tlmt ho wo.s refunded

Shs.,1OO/-6 But that was c..t tho .clo.n council~ ·If wo take it a.a settled t110.t tho respondent wo.s not at that Council, thori 1t follows thnt ho could not have boon rcpu.ido So wo ordor tha.t ho be paid his Shs.200/= 1 Evoryono of tho appellants to ~Y Shs&50/=• The apponl is o.llowod with costs. DATED at MWJiNZA this 2~Q. do.y of October, 1992• AoM.li.. Oi'.1fill JUJTICE OF !...PPE!'Ji J:...,S .L. Rli.M/'i.DHANI

JUSTICE OF APPEAL li oS o MNZJN i:S JUSTICE OF fJ'PEl'iL I certify that this is. . .o,.. true copy of tho original, ( R oM. RWEYEMli.MU ) DEPUTY RillISTRii.R / /