LAND CASE NO

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA MUSOMA SUB - REGISTRY AT MUSOMA LAND CASE NO. 23 OF 2022 REFERENCE NUMBER 20221017000454665 BETWEEN WAMBURA MASWE KAKERA........................................................................ 1stPLAINTIFF DORIS FABIAN............................................................................................ 2ndPLAINTIFF PENDO BONIPHAS ORIA............................................................................. 3rdPLAINTIFF ROBART KIBERENGE.................................................................................... 4thPLAINTIFF KICHERE KICHERE....................................................................................... 5thPLAINTIFF BONIPHACE MHINDI.................................................................................... 6thPLAINTIFF VERSUS THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF MORI.................................................................. 1stDEFENDANT DISTRICT EXECUTIVI DIRECTOR OF RORYA DISTRICT......... 2nd DEFENDANT ATTORNEY GENERAL.................................................................................... 3rdDEFENDANT NESI LAIZA........... ................................................................... 4th DEFENDANT MWLISAYA ASENO....................................................................................... 5thDEFENDANT ANTONY SANGA............................................................................................ 6thDEFENANT DAUDIJEJE................................................................................................... 7™DEFENDANT ANNA DAUDI MARWA................................................................................... 8thDEFENDANT MAGRETH ADONGO............. .................................................... 9th DEFENDANT JOSHUA NYAMHANGA WANDWE................................................................ 10thDEFENDANT ERICK ANGWEN ORONGE........................................................................... 11™DEFENDANT ODEMBA DAUDI SONGA......................................... 12™ DEFENDANT THETHE SANGA MASWE.............................................................................. 13™DEFENDANT WEREMA SANGA......................................................................................... 14™DEFENDANT Page 1 of 27 AGALLA AYUKE SONGA 15th DEFENDANT ODHIAMBO MAGOTI... 16™ DEFENDANT KDDI LWANG'A......... 17™ DEFENDANT OPONDO OPIYO.......... 18™ DEFENDANT JUDGMENT 10 May & 27 June, 2024 M. L, Komba, J: Plaintiffs above mentioned are claiming jointly and severely to be declared legal owners of the disputed land situated in Mtakuja hamlet, Mori village within Tarime District which is found in Mara Region. Each plaintiff claims to own different size of land which was acquired in different means (clearance of virgin land, inheritance, allocated by Village council and gift) as testified, all of which is located within Mtakuja hamlet which form disputed land. As per plaint, defendants trespassed into the said land between year 2016 to 2020 by constructing two classrooms and toilet and allocate other portion of land as plots to 4th up to 18th defendants. Following the said trespass, apart from declaration of legal owners, plaintiffs are claiming against defendants, payment of general damage to the tune of TZS 120,000,000/=. Page 2 of 27 To counter the plaintiffs' claim, in their joint WSD the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants claimed that the disputed land is legally owned by the 1st defendant and that it is plaintiffs who unlawful trespassed into the disputed land and established their homestead and other activities while knowing the land is owned by the 1st defendant who administers the land, plan and develop it for the benefit of the entire community including plaintiffs. Through appropriate procedures, the 1st defendant claims to allocate land to 4th up to 18th defendants with exception of the 12th, 13th and 15th whom were not allocated with the said land, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit as plaintiffs are not entitled to compensation. Further, the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 14th, 16th, 17th and 18th defendants disputed plaintiffs claim and averred that plaintiffs have never owned the suit land, rather the land was owned by the 1st defendant who legally allocate it to them except the 12th ,13th and 15th defendants who never applied for allocation and own nothing. They prayed for dismissal of the suit. Basing on contest of the parties in the suit, two issues were framed in order to determine the rights of the parties: Page 3 of 27 i) Who is the lawful owner of the disputed land. II) What reliefs are the parties entitled to. The legal principle is, he who alleges must prove (Section 110 of the Evidence Act). The standard of proof, this being a category of civil cases is on balance of probabilities. The issue now is whether the plaintiffs have established ownership of the said suit land, them being claimants. The 1st plaintiff appeared as PW1 and testified that his parents lived in Mori village since 1958 and he was born in the same village in the years 1968. He has piece of land which is measured 210 xllO paces surrounded with neighbors whom he mentioned in plaint in three sides and one side there is a road from Mori centre to Utegi. He further testified the land which was given by his mother has four graves (his mother and three children), three buildings and trees including fruits trees and he resides in that area. It was his claim that in the year 2019 the village council trespassed to his land and build two kindergarten classes office and toilet claiming that the land belongs to them while, according to this witness, is not true. The said classrooms are near to the graves of his beloved one. He insisted that there was no farm and the place was bare land since he started to live therein. Page 4 of 27 During cross examination he confirmed he did not tender any document to prove the land was given by his mother and the amount he claims was estimation and also said his sisal was removed. He confirmed that he claims his land against the village council where they build two classrooms. PW1 evidence was collaborated by the testimony of Isaya Chilo Ogola (PW2) the former chairman of Chereche village between the year 2014 and 2019 who testified that Wambura Maswe inherit his piece of land from his parents who acquired from operation vijiji program. PW2 participated in handing over of village assets and confirmation of boundaries during handing over of administration of Mori village to the new village leaders. He further testified that villages were divided so as to simplify administration and that, properties of Mori were previously owned by Chereche village. He mentioned items handled to Mori village to include Mori Primary School, One shamba (Gambarara), josho, village office, football pitch and road. He clarified further that things which were handled to Mori village upon its formation and registration does not include land (farm) which is subject of this suit. It was PW2 testimony that Chereche had nothing called farm. About acquisition of land for village development, he was of the position that it is Page 5 of 27 possible for the Government to acquire land but there must be proper information from village leaders and there must be agreement. He mentioned some people whom were leaders during handing over to include Daudi Songa and Nyamwaga Chacha. When cross examined by State Attorney, this witness informed this court that he did not attend the Mori General Meeting when was due. He confirmed the land which owned by Wambura (the first plaintiff) was once used by his parents and Wambura is still in the said land although he did not know the size. He further clarified that 2nd plaintiff was married in that land and in-law family was living there. When he handled properties to Mori village there was no farm or shamba la mifugo rather there was shamba la Kijiji known as Gambarara which has 16 acres. When cross examined by 8th defendant this witness testified that he was invited in the meeting by Afisa Tawala but then he was ordered to vacate without given time to elaborate what he knows as among the founders of Mori from Chereche village. John Angai Oinde appeared as PW3 and testified that he was a Chereche village chairman between the year 2009 - 2014. He said when he assumes powers he found plaintiff in the disputed land. He mentioned Page 6 of 27 properties of the Chereche village included josho, banio, mnara, dispensary, Oboro Primary School, residential area and citizens. All these properties were handed to him as a chairman by previous leaders. This witness testified further that the mother of PW1 was buried in that land. In his tenure there was land dispute in the disputed area and was resolved by village leaders by declaring the land belong to one of the citizens. During cross examination by State Attorney, witness he insisted that PW1 is living in the disputed land which was given to him by his mother and confirmed he did not know the size although plaintiff border each other. About proof of properties, he handed over to Mori village he testified that the same are kept by Village Executive officer. When cross examined by the 10th defendant, he clarified that it was before construction of school when citizens had demarcation issues and was solved amicably. Samwel Chacha (PW4) informed this court that plaintiffs occupied the suit land since 1987 as he used to visit the 4* plaintiff who is young brother. To his knowledge they acquired the said land by clearing the virgin land. He once was a councilor of Kigunga ward which border the Nyantorobo ward which the disputed land is located. To his knowledge, Tarime had only three farms which are Komuge Tarafa, Baraki Tarafa and Page 7 of 27 Utegi Farm. All those were owned by the Government and farm as he knows must benefit the entire public. He is a relative of the 4th plaintiff and he testified that 4th plaintiff's sister was buried in the disputed land, which is residential land. He provided his experience when he was a councilor that when Government is in need of the land for specific purpose, they call a public meeting and request for land. He said there must be agreement. When cross examined by Mr. Kitia (SA) he clarified that his young brother is complaining that his land has been taken by the Government. He knows all plaintiffs as they reside in the disputed land although he acknowledges not to know the size of land occupied by each plaintiff. He said after a long occupation without disturbance the land becomes legally owned by the person who occupied, currently the 4th plaintiff's land has graves and school. PW5 was Doris Fabian, the second plaintiff who testified that she was married to Fabian Okinyi and owned a piece of land measure 152 x 187 paces but Village Government trespassed to her land to the extent of 114 x 50 paces which had two graves in it and uprooted his sisal which was demarcation. She testified that she lived peacefully since 1988 to 2014 when the village was divided that mark the beginning of the dispute. Page 8 of 27 Witness disclosed that she was a member of Chereche Village council and during her tenure they hand over properties from Chereche village management to management of new Mori village. It was her testimony that by that time there was nothing called farm. She did not dispute that she attended the meeting but she disputed on resolution that citizens have to vacate their land because the land was not an open space when Mori Village was formed. She complained that Village chairman deviate from the agreed project of Dispensary, school, bus stop and market and he decided to sale plots to citizens. This witness claim for her land and compensation for destruction done. During cross examination she confirmed that the disputed land has been sold to citizens as plot and one of them has already constructed residential house. She clarified she was given the land by her mother-in-law who cleared virgin land. Her land had several trees and used to cultivate maize, her main complaint is directed to the 1st defendant who trespassed and sale her land. Ezekiel Obyeno appeared as PW6, an aunt to 2nd plaintiff. She informed this court that 2nd plaintiff was married to Fabian Okinyi in then Chereche village. In the year 2000 Doris mother-in-law (Rosalina Okinyi) called a clan Page 9 of 27 meeting and handled a piece of land measure 187 x 152 meters to Doris and her husband and stayed in the saijie land up to the day she appeared in court although the village Government trespassed to the Doris land and sale to villagers. When cross examined by State Attorney, she informed this court that she has been in Chereche later on Mori since 1964 and before Doris, the said piece of land was owned by Rosalina. Pendo Boniphas testified as PW7 wtfio while under oath testified that her husband died and was buried in one among nine graves found in the disputed land. She used to live with lher husband since 1997 during his time and she believe the land belongs to them. She further informed this court that 1st defendant uprooted 250 sisal plants when trespassed over the land. During cross examination she testifiecj that she inherits from her husband believing to be matrimonial property. (She still in occupation of her house, however she claims for destruction caused by the 1st defendant and the possession as she was informed the land does not belong to her. Page 10 of 27 PW8 was Elikana Ayuke who collaborated what was testified by PW7 who is the 3rd plaintiff that Pendo Boniphas was married to Boniphas Oria in 1997 and her husband died in 2006. The couple stayed at Mori where she still resides up to the time the suit was in court. In Luo custom when husband died the house and other properties remain with wife. He confirmed the disputed land has 9 graves. During cross examination he said Pendo has rights over the land not because she has children, she has to keep properties after the death of her husband. The place is cleared now days there is no demarcation. The 4th plaintiff testified as PW9 that his parents reside in Chereche since 1987, one among the three wives is Janifa Ghati. Janifa has two plots of land; one for agriculture and the other for residential purpose. He went on informing this court that in the year 2000 his mother (Janifa Ghati) offered her pieces of land to him as gift, Exh Pl. He complained that 1st defendant trespassed into one piece (120 x 88 paces) in the year 2019 which was used for cultivation and distribute to other citizens whom one of them, Ogala Yuke build a permanent house with iron sheets. In the same year dispute arose. The land has one grave and there were trees. There Page 11 of 27 was a dispute over the said land and Jenifa Ghati was declared owner of the land. When cross examined, he clarified that one piece of land was trespassed by 1st defendant in the year 2019 and plaintiff occupied the remaining piece. The 5th plaintiff appeared in this court as PW10. In proving ownership of the disputed land, he testified that his plot measured 235 x 176 paces and has 7 houses and two (2) graves and mentioned his neighbours. He further informed this court that he was given the said land by his mother (Gusui Kichere) in 1998 as a gift and produce exhibit P2 to prove the offer. His area was planned for school construction and according to him the survey is already done. PW11 was Boniphace Wambura Mhindi (6th plaintiff) who testified that his land measured 114 x 109 meters was trespassed by the 1st defendant and sold plots to villagers. In justifying the origin, he testified that he was given the said land by his father who cleared a virgin land way back in 1920 and in the year 1988 he was given piece of land measured 230 x 109 meters. In claiming for his rights, he was sued by the village Page 12 of 27 chairman as shown in Exh. P3 but latter on the matter was withdrawn. As per his testimony there was three land cases and in one of them, he was sentenced to six months imprisonment. During cross examination he mentioned the trespassed area measured 114 x 109 meters and that there was no negotiation with village leaders. He prayed to be declared a lawful owner and be compensated for disturbance caused. Generally, each plaintiff claims to owns piece of land in a disputed land, as previous hinted, with different size and different mode of acquisition. They have farms, residential houses and graves of their beloved ones in the said land. Since year 2017 they have been disturbed by the 1st defendant and claim apart from other things a compensation for disturbance caused as 6th Plaintiff was even convicted and jailed for the said land. Rebutting what was alleged by plaintiffs, all defendants except the 11th and 18th claim that area is owned by 1st defendant who was implementing village development plan. As per WSD, the village council decide to plan, develop and administer the village land for the benefit of the entire community. Page 13 of 27 The individual testimony of DW1, DW2, DW3, DW4, DW9, DW10, DW11 and DW12 were to the effect that the disputed land was owned by the 1st defendant who allocated plots to them. The 12th defendant appeared as DW8 and denied the claim as he owns nothing from the disputed land. DW5, DW6, DW7, DW13 and DW16 claimed that the land was bare land (open space) which was planned for livestock projects some years back but the project did not take off. During cross examination they failed to prove what was testified and confirm they were told by some other people. DW17 was of the same testimony that the area was planned for livestock project (farm) whereby, when he was young, he saw building material which was stored in his father's house. DW14 (Nyamhanga Chacha) is a Mori village chairperson whom testified that all plaintiffs have trespassed into the project land and on 28/06/2016 it was resolved in the village meeting that the plaintiffs had trespassed to abandoned farm land. Minutes of the said meeting which was admitted as Exh. DI show the second plaintiff attended the said meeting as a member of the village council. He further testified that on 09/08/2016 he called village general assembly which made resolution as per (Exh D2) that the project area to be used for social services. Following that Page 14 of 27 resolution, he requested the authority responsible for livestock to allow the village to utilize the project land by change the land use plan as per Exh. D3. The area was surveyed on 23/8/2018 by land officer and experts. Mori village chairman testified further that they advertised to citizen to apply for allocation of the land and on 24/07/2019 village Government allocated land to 44 citizens for various activities out of 70 who applied (Exh. D5) and build two classrooms, staff room and toilet and that plaintiffs were aware of the village development but reported the matter to District Commissioner who formed a commission to investigate the matter. Nyamhanga did not end there, he informed this court that on 07/02/2020 there was another meeting called by DC to inquire the plaintiffs' claims as shown at Exh. D4 and in that meeting plaintiffs were not ordered to vacate rather, he said, they were warned not to. extend to other land. In implementing the general meeting resolution, Chairman testified that village management called all plaintiffs for discussion but refused and came to court. He insisted that they did not disturb plaintiffs and call plaintiffs to adhere to general meeting resolution which agreed that Wambura Maswe (1st plaintiff) should own one and half (1.5) acres, Doris Fabian (2nd Plaintiff) to own two (2) acres, Pendo Boniface (3rd plaintiff) to own One Page 15 of 27 (1) acre from the farm, Robert Kiberenge (4th Plaintiff) to own two (2) acres, and the remaining 16.5 to be used by 1st defendant. It was not well elaborated the base of the distribution of land neither the total size of the land. When cross examined by the counsel for plaintiff about disputed land, this witness informed this court that the land was not owned by Chereche village neither Mori village when it was established but was owned by livestock department. Further this witness acknowledges not to know demarcation of the disputed land from what he calls livestock farm. Specifically, he disputed on the presence of graves in disputed land. He repeatedly confirms that village Government did not disturb plaintiffs in their land and confirm currently the village own 16.5 acres. After distribution of land to four plaintiffs. It has to be noted that there are six (6) plaintiffs in this case but Chairman distributed land to only four. He did not testify why they left out the other two plaintiffs. That makes the end of testimony by witnesses. Plaintiffs are complaining for their land which was trespassed by above named defendants lead by the 1st defendant. The cardinal principle which I will base on is who allege must prove as it is provided under section 110 of the Evidence Act, Cap 6. Page 16 of 27 Among the complains of the plaintiffs is that, the 1st defendant has built two classrooms, staff room and toilet on the land owned by 1st and 5th plaintiffs. 1st defendant further trespassed to other areas and sell to defendants while plaintiffs were ordered to vacate from their land. I have analysed pleading and testimony of plaintiffs. In establishing ownership, the 1st plaintiff testified that he owns 110 x210 paces of land which was given as gift by his parents as per Exh. Pl. His parents acquired the same during operation Vijiji. The 2nd plaintiff claims to own 50x 187 paces which was trespassed by the 1st defendant. As per 2nd plaintiff's testimony, the land was given by her mother-in-law who cleared virgin land. Another plaintiff is Pendo Fabian who appeared as the 3rd plaintiff, she occupies 51 x 116 paces in disputed land jointly with her husband and she is the survivor after the death of her husband. The 4th plaintiff claims to own 174 x 150 paces of piece of land which was a gift from his biological mother as witnessed in Exh Pl. The 5th plaintiff claims to own 235 x 176 paces of piece of land as gift form his parents who cleared virgin land as per Exh P2. While the last plaintiff testified to own 114 x 109 paces of land given by his parents who cleared virgin land. When this court visited the disputed land found plaintiff were in occupation Page 17 of 27 of part of the disputed land while some other lands were vacated by order of the 1st defendant. It was the testimony of all plaintiffs that from 2016 defendants claim the land was owned by the 1st defendant who is the village chairman of Mori Village council. On their side, defendants claim the disputed land belong to the 1st defendant. It is in record that classroom and staffroom was constructed in the disputed land in the year 2019 while the general assembly and a letter of change of land use (Exh D3) was dated the year 2020. Further, it was the evidence of DW14, chairman of Mori village council who is also the 1st defendant that they allocated land to 44 villagers on 24/07/2019 while the letter (Exh D3) to which he relied to confirm the ownership as claimed was issued on the year 2020. That mean, the 1st defendant trespassed into the land without knowing the owner and started to allocate to other defendants till when plaintiffs complained is when they started to seek for permission if at all the livestock department owned the said land. From the testimony of DW14, what was done between 2016 to Feb 2020 before existence of Exh. D3 was illegal practices because by that time as testified by DW14, he was not sure who owns the land. Page 18 of 27 At paragraph 6 of WSD of 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants allege that the disputed land was owned by Chereche Viilage before the division and establishment of Mori village. PW2 who was the chairman of Chereche (2014-2019) mentioned properties which were handled to Mori village in 2014 when Mori village was formed, disputed land was not among the properties mentioned. The testimony of PW2 is collaborated by PW3 who was chairman of the Chereche (2009-2014) who handled properties to PW2 that there was nothing called farm owned by Chereche village. In his testimony the DW14 failed to counter the testimony of PW2 and PW3 by not tendering handing over minutes and items received when Mori village formed. That being not enough, DW14 relied on the Exh. D3 that the disputed land is owned by livestock department of Tarime District Council and deviated from what was started in WSD. The general rule is parties are bound by their own pleading. See case Herieth Kasidi vs Agustino Bushiri (Civil Appeal No. 480 of 2020) [2023] TZCA 17767 (23 October 2023) and James Funke Gwagilo vs The Attorney General (Civil Appeal 67 of 2001) [2003] TZCA 24 (4 February 2003). Page 19 of 27 In the case at hand DW14 pleaded at paragraph 3 that the disputed land is legally owned by the 1st defendant while during hearing of the case he testified that the land belong to livestock department basing on Exh D3. Nevertheless, I got a time to read the said Exh D3 without bothering that DW14 (1st defendant) departed from his pleading. The author of Exh. D3 was replying to a letter from the 1st defendant and grant was requested which was change of use. This court was not given an opportunity to know exactly what was requested but part of the reply in Exh D3 reads: 'Katika barua yako umekiri kuwa kabia ya mgawanyo wa Kijiji cha Chereche na kuunda Kijiji kipya cha Mori kuiikuwa na shamba HHiotengwa kwa ajiii ya mifugo toka mwaka 1974 ambaio kwa sasa haHtumiki/ Exh D3 is to the effect that the said farm was established in 1974 but the area was unoccupied to 2020 when the letter was written. It is more than 49 years the said livestock department were not using land. To the contrary, plaintiffs has been in occupation of the same land for years, some of them since operation vijiji which is estimated to took place between 1970 to 1975. That is to say, plaintiffs have been in occupation of the Page 20 of 27 disputed land for more than 40 years. See the case of Makubi Dogani vs Ngodongo Maganga (Civil Appeal 78 of 2019) [2020] TZCA 1741 (21 August 2020). From the excerpt of Exh D3 above, the story that there was a farm was introduced by the 1st defendant. But while in court the 1st defendant denied the farm to be owned by the Mori village claiming it was owned by Livestock department and further informed this court that Livestock department did not dispute ownership. As I have said, Exh D3 is very clear as the whole idea of farm was introduced by the 1st defendant who when cross examined failed to prove existence and ownership of farm. Further, Exh. D3 just grant permission to change land use without demarcation. Un-answered question is how does 1st defendant know demarcation of the so-called farm? The question now is what size of land was actually claimed to be allocated for farm project. DW14 explained the disputed land measures 540 by 300 steps, to the contrary, he testified that he doesn't have document from livestock department that show boundaries neither the size of the land. This court wonders how he managed to measure the size without knowing boundary of the so-called farm land. The other witness who testified over the size of the farm land was DW 15 who Page 21 of 27 informed this court that the size of the farm is 23 acres without any further explanation. The principle is till the same who allege must prove. The 1st defendant is supposed to proof existence of 25 acres as claimed. See the case of North Mara Gold Mine Limited vs Joseph Weroma Dominic, Civil Appeal No. 299 of 2020 CAT at Musoma 1st defendant being the chairman denied this court an opportunity to know what was handed to Mori village when it was established. This court draw adverse inference that farm was not among the properties which was owned by Chereche village which latter on was transferred to Mori village. See the case of Azizi Abdallah vs The Republic, [1991] TLR 91. This court visited locus in quo on 10/05/2024 for the purpose of ascertaining what is found on the disputed land as both sides had different testimony over the development and or existing features on the disputed land. While at the scene, this court found the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th plaintiffs are residing into the disputed land except the 6th plaintiff who has a farm which was cultivated. Part of the land from each plaintiff land was found un-used/unoccupied that prove that the land was identified and taken by the 1st defendant and allocated to other defendants as this court Page 22 of 27 manage to see marks put by prospecting incoming occupiers who are defendants. While at the locus in quo this court saw graves in a number mentioned by plaintiffs and to be sincere, some of the graves had permanent marks (yamejengewa). In proving that graves were old enough and that plaintiffs occupied the disputed land for long time as was probed by State Attorney, 3rd plaintiff whose land had 9 graves, informed this court that when his husband dead he left her with two years old child who is now already married. That shows, even if some graves had no permanent marks, their relatives and beloved ones were buried some years back. Apart from grave this court managed to see land claimed by each plaintiff ■ and land which was sold as plots within disputed area. The disputed land has no foundation as claimed by defendants rather there is remains of bricks in one area which suggested there was something like building , without certainty of what building was, its size and the purpose. As indicated previous plaintiffs were in long occupation of the land and utilizing it by various activities. Some of their parents cleared bush before Page 23 of 27 they offered to plaintiffs while other plaintiffs were given as gifts. All plaintiffs have been using the disputed land. What I have gathered from pleading and testimony is that, In the year 2020 when the 1st defendant and other villagers agree not to disturb plaintiffs as narrated by DW14 and supported by Exh. D4, the school was already constructed and allocation of plots to defendants was already done as witnessed in Exh D5. That means, plaintiffs were already disturbed on their land which was occupied for a long time. The claim by plaintiffs as per paragraph 31, 33, 35, 37 and 39 is uprooted sisal plants which was demarcation, trespassing into their land and allocate plots to defendants and construction of classrooms and toilet without consent neither proper compensation. From analysis of testimony by both sides I find plaintiffs managed to prove ownership over the disputed land. I know in cases of this nature, the proof is to the balance of probability. Defendants failed to reach that standard. That is to say, the evidence by each plaintiff is heavier than evidence by defendants specifically the 1st defendant who admitted to allocate the disputed land to 4th up to 18th defendants. On the issue of trespass, plaintiffs being occupiers of the land for a long time, the action by the Page 24 of 27 defendants is termed to be trespassing unless they follow proper procedures or prove the ownership which they failed. Village council did not own the disputed land and so it was not possible to sale plots to other people without compensation. See North Mara Gold Mine Limited vs Joseph Weroma Dominic (supra). Reading careful Exh D4, the 1st defendant acknowledge that plaintiffs were occupying the land which is the same land needed for establishing social services within the village. If at all that was the issue by the village council, 1st defendant has to follow proper procedures for the compulsory acquisition of lands for public purposes as provided under land Acquisition Act and the Land Act. See Joachim Ndelembe vs Maulid M. Mshindo & 2 Others, Civil Appeal No. 106 of 2020 CAT at Dar es salaam. In solving the disagreement among them, parties had raised issues. The 1st was who was the lawful owner of the disputed land. I have analaysed claims of plaintiffs against defendants and the defence raised. 1st defendant failed to prove ownership of the disputed land where plaintiffs have residential houses and farms. From this court analysis, plaintiffs managed to prove ownership and each plaintiff is entitled to be recognized as the lawful owner of the piece of land as narrated in plaint as I hereby do. Page 25 of 27 The 2nd issue is what reliefs do parties entitled. Having discussed and analysed the testimony of each witness, its time now to grant reliefs as follows; 1. All plaintiffs are declared lawful owners of the disputed land. 2. Plaintiffs are entitled with their piece of land as claimed in the plaint that is the 1st plaintiff is entitled to 210 x 110 meters surrounded by Wankuru, Robert Kiberenge, Julita Obudho and main road which its demarcation was removed. The 2nd plaintiff is entitled to 114 x 50 meters which was ordered to vacate surrounded by Boniface Mhindi, Robert Kiberenge, Pendo Boniface and other side there is a road. The 3rd plaintiff is entitled to 140 x 146 x 116 x 51 meters which is surrounded by Jenifa Chacha, Wankuru, Doris Fabian and Kichere Kichere. The 4th plaintiff is entitled to 174 x 150 meters which is surrounded by Doris Fabian, Wachage Kiberenge and two sides there is roads and pass way. The 5th plaintiff is entitled to 235 x 176 meters which is surrounded by Masiaga Kiberenge, Adoni Omolo, Pendo Boniphace and Kungu Magorombe and the 6th plaintiff is entitled 114 x 109 meters which is surrounded by Clan land, Doris Fabian, John Marwa and Road. Page 26 of 27 3. All defendants are warned not to trespass into plaintiffs' land. 4. All defendants except the 12 defendants have to pay 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th plaintiffs a general damage to the tune of TZS 200,000/= each while the 6th plaintiff is entitled to general damage to the tune of TZS 500,000/=. The damage to be paid within six months from the date of this judgment. 5. Costs of this suit to paid by all defendants except the 12th defendant. It is so ordered. DATED ir>MS’5^A on this 27th June, 2024. M. L KOMBA JUDGE Judgment in chamber in the presence of Ms. Neema Mwaipyana and Mr. Stewart Kamugisha both State Attorneys who represented 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants and in the presence of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th plaintiffs. kk M. L. KOMBA JUDGE 27th June, 2024. Page 27 of 27