19980508 TZHC Mbeya
The appellant's long, undisturbed possession of the land for over twelve years, coupled with the respondent's failure to act within the limitation period and relinquishment of ownership, entitled the appellant to lawful ownership of the land.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19980508 TZHC Mbeya
- Parties
- Appellant: Yesaya Mwamtobe; Respondent: Unnamed Respondent
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 8 May 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment on Second Appeal From District Court
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Limitation Period for Recovery of Land, Adverse Possession, Transfer of Land Ownership
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Yesaya Mwamtobe
Appellant
Unnamed Respondent
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Second Appeal From District Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant acquired lawful ownership of the disputed land through long and undisturbed possession
- 2 Whether the respondent's claim was barred by limitation
- 3 Whether the respondent had relinquished ownership of the land
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant's long, undisturbed possession of the land for over twelve years, coupled with the respondent's failure to act within the limitation period and relinquishment of ownership, entitled the appellant to lawful ownership of the land.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed
Orders
- District court's judgment quashed
- Primary court's decision restored, declaring appellant lawful owner
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
.! ?', : $ -•.·>•~, ,·,, )'" . ~· (,, ll IN THE HIGH COUI1'f OF TANZANIA AT MB2:YA (PC) CIVIL A1?F?:.:.C~:'.".., ZJ,~:" 22 OF 199.5 (From the decision of the District Court of Before: ,C:.• (vI. Rurnanyil·:a - J2s:::.dent }•1a;,;;istrate) YESAYA f.1WAMTOBE d C O (I O O o_ O O 0 o O O C O O 0 JUDGMENT MOSHI 9 J. The dispute·1between the parties ccmtred ·:m a sharnba which the appellant successfully claimed from the responder.': in a su:it before' the primary court o! Ilongo. That de~ision was reversed ·::i:, t::.c (1.istric.t court of Mbeya on an appeal to it oY the· res~dent. The appellant felt a;:;grieved, hence tlus a.ppaa.1 ~ was arg,,ied .l)efor~ me by his learned ::::_,':,''.)C.:.t. 1 e. I-~r. Mwr,hgole 1 and resistaa by' the :respoaient himeelf. The ~terial fa~tE established in ev~j02G2 before the trial court wer~ these, In •966 the resp<;>ndent inherited some land from hi& graMmOthe», lt\ 1974 Tama~ha Simwit~gombe SU3 approached the respondent \iith her fa.theJ for 13.nd., The respondent gave her a portion of his land which beeame the ltmd in \. di~pute. SU3 aild hie father occupied that lJ.nd, and built. a ~ t t l ~ house on itA Tne offer wc:,s absolute q,,d t;,," land became the ]'tel'erty of SU3. ! The r€!4tydent, he aclmittec, t:eF,·,r: a .J.. .l l, o ·~:1 1975 su3 got marri.¢ and left the lano, leaving her fqther on Ji:, :In 19?6 the appellar,t approa.c.lled the father ,r $U3 for land. He hatl. just arrived. fror.i Zam~ia ,an<i he W!lS af'tel' farming land. After he had <:onaul ted SU3, the father of SU3 gava th~ api,ell~ the land in tiiespute. The offer, again, would arpear to have been a'Qe~ute,. 1 for the appellant plant~'1 ~ i t tr Pe& -::,. it and '::~-=--=-- t on it a perman·,mt house of and Ml:;iangalo Mbwate SM'i, ac ,,Je~l as the respor..der..t ·. s :d tnesses, Asangw.isye Mwaneakamil• su-.; ant SU3, saw the appellant building the house .and planting ''\ 2 the fruit trees. Jn 1977 the appe::..lan-t left for Chunya leaving the land under the care of SM3. A~rding to SM; the respondent began to raise claims of ownership over the larwi in 1988, but the r· ~spo:1dent told the trial court a 0 different story'..- that it was in F:C-2 w~cdL tL,,; 3.ppellant sent relatives to the land to harvest fruits that he T)lacGd his first cJ.e:'_rns over the land. The primary court found in favour of the 2.})pellar:.t on account of the long and undisturbed 1eriod of about fiftGcn years the appellant had occupied the land, ith respect, I would uphold that finding. 1. 1 _The period of limitation for the recovery of land. is twelve years;__ SEE I.aw of Limitation Act No. 10 of 1971, First Sehetlule, Part 22. That period passed before the resp~ndent ·made any effort to reeover the land from the appellant. fhe res~ondent, who was crucial here, told the tyial court that it was in 1992 that he registered his •first elaima ovet the lan,l. He was throughout in the village and had seen the appellal)t ~cupying ana developing the land. Besides, there is a line of aut1tfitieG to show that this court will not readily interfere in order to •,f• give·:,remedy where the party seeking such remedy sat on his rights and did not act 'vi~th pea,t1able pro~ptitude- SEE, for instance, ~i1aje v. Fembera ( 197~) '., : HCD 3 ~- ~d Shahani u • Nasetr:$ v 1 Ra~abu Simb:;_ ( 19~7) HCD 233. It is in the public inter;tt that ~a person w~ has long been i..>1 undisputed pos~ession should be al;i~ ,~ to clea,l wit~ th; land as .-mer. Lastly, there was one erueial matter which har'. . . eacaped the attention of th,e ci~strict court. The land in dispute was no longer . ~ the pro:pe.Pty of the respoJa~~t. He had, relinguished his right of ownership ,::( over it when he unydit.yafly gave it to SU.'3 in 1994. So the land ceased to be a matter for the. respon,dent. It was a misconception on the faets _established :, ,.. \ --..... 1 in evidence 'for the·;~di•tr~t court to ha"\ie declared the respondent it~ ownei·. ~ · i ' t. I ac«ordingly ' ·a1• t,h?.\ a p:peal, quas!1 the district eourt' s judgment, and 1~•· ·, hereby restore the pr~1'jl' ·eOU!'t' ~ decision which declat"ed the appellant the . . '.)~\ tt /. ' . lawful .•wner 4'f the l~d ih -di~e. The a~llan t to ba~e hie ci:,.ats her~ and in the eou:r-ts below• · t ./·::,, /iii ; .....-·~ \ /--z-',._., ----:~~ ___ ~ ·-------:· _) JUDGEo