Felician Balyehele vs Nyonga Kaguwa ((Pc) Civil Appeal No. 116 of 1997) [2000] TZHC 561 (23 November 2000)

__ i IN 'IHE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA 14.T MWANZA APPELLATE JURISDICTION (Mwanza Registry) (PC) CIVIL APPEAL NO. U6 OF 1997 (From the decision of the District court of Sengerema District at sengerema in civil Appeal No. 22 of 1995 - Before J.K. Mzonge, ESq., District Magistrate and Nyakaliro Prirna.ry court Orig. civil case No. 31 of 1994) FELICIA N :MLYEHELE o • • • • o e <> • • e' o • • o • o • o • • e o' o • 0 • • • o APFELLA. NT Versus: NYONGA. KAGUWA •"• .. •••••••o••o••o••••o·••••o•o•'•••• RESPONDENT .. JUDGEMENT . MREMA, JUPGE Felician Balyehele, herein this judgement referred to as the appellant, was the piaintiff in the primary Court of Nyakalilo, Sengerema District. There (at the Prl,rriary Court) he sued Ny-onga Kaguwa, the present respondent in this appeal, ·for recovery of a piece of land which the appellant ciaimed was his clan•s land. He was successful but that finding of the primary court in favour of the appellant aggrieved the respondent who appealed from that decision to · the District Court of Sengerema, Sengerema District. Mr. J. K. Mzonge, learned district magistrate, after hearing the appeal, was not satisfiP.~ with the judgement of the Primary Court, for he observed as follows (quoting the very words): "There is evidence that the uncle of the respondent (now appellant) passed that land to the appellant ( now respondent). The respondent (appellant - plaintiff) and his witness SM3 stated so during the trial. If that transaction took place in 1951 or 1971, the truth is the appellant has been in that over and above 12 years. No doubt, the suit of the respondent was time barred. Be as it may, the shamba belongs to his uncle who left for Lusubi and there is no evidence that the

r .. j • A •~ :, .? ':,'' • • • '• •., ' ••· ,.,' • '• :; \I • • C ,r' ', title of the' Land .-in issue was left on him• The respond~:qt' .never stated so. He fa.ild · - . . to summon that uncle if he 'is still a.live ·or . ,';I:'· ...... hi s hef°rs \·.-:.n ....... On the basis of that holding the appelate magistrate allowed the appeal., quashed the finding of the court of f:irst ir'.!Stc:1:·q:9.. an4 :..set a.s1:de ·. ' .. , ··· · ·any order made consequent thereto •. rt is thi$ :finding .o.f .the:,a.ppellate .. . . .-: /: . ·:"':.'_ ... a... .. .. . . ·' ·. . district ,court. against which the presettt. appeal : liese , • .. :· ' . __ .. ·.- . advocat.. T}μ-ee grounds of ,appec3;_l were -·· .. : .. :· --.:·· •• .:· •• : ••• ( 1 :: • . ,._ ·:, . • .•. · ,, instituted ."in' the· 'ptition of Appeal, which are: . i.•- . ,,::;·: . •, . ,. ~ errd :j.n law .. i11 fintj.ing; tt the, .t-iitnesses · for i·<·, '' .:: 't~: a:p;:it ;e;e 0 not crdible cont.rary to,.tlle ... •'-·• . . finding .·6::t ; tB.e' trial,· 1co·t, ·. -i thut .. ,s.ubstant.iating onthe said, .fiilding., . ·. , , · · • ,. · '; · . r- -. . ·. ·.- . )-- - - .,. 2_,. That. the _f:i,nding._of ;the appellate· district: ma:-gis'tre{'•· ~ ~ . .. • . ·:=' . . : . ·. -·· ' . . • .• that the appellant• s uncle had handed over.· th..e .spa. ,, . . .. . . , .. I,'.". . ... : .- . '. ·: ... : . ' ' ... . ..• - .. " ·j:· :to· the i'.-;pondent i~, against the weight of eyidence ... ' . . .-: : : •.· -. :"j ''.··i.:·,1,: : .... ·, ,· : .. ·. · .. t.. ~ • ,•• •.• ,•.. ·:. · ,:-· •· on,recoz:-.: •. · •.'.,. . ' :,., • 'J !" :· -i;-':" . :.;; ' :;; • '3· .. : Tha.f-:t:lier~ .. w ···no 'bais in law or _fact for the :.-appellat·e· court ··to\iisturb th~ u~~~oci; decision of the trial.court~ : . ··' ,. . . . ,·.· ., . ·•·. •_;. On fhe basj,s of,J;hofe· grcp-ms it. i-s the,··appellant•·:s ·prayei to· this" court .(·• .. . . ' to m~~ ~~ -rdf, set'ti11g •:a,side the decisior(b:t th~ '.bistrict:i.tc,tirt. and declare :the··appellant as the lwflJ]. owner' ·p:t i:11·fsuit' ._shaml:;,a-·. . . . ' .. ·-· ··-: . . . . ... . •'"' ',. S1,1bmi tting on . the., memoran4up1 · of >appeal ~~ rail;-- th a:ppeflantt s r, • : '··: • '.', • ,' ·oounse1. . tha~ 'ther_e: .. is .onl;1; one q'!lestion to be ·:asked' in'·thi.'s bofu-'t, which very _quetio_n_ ,wa_s the. gove1;ning querry .i·n the·.;mind; ·of the d~~e -embers of the· court of first instance, which is· -who·- > between the' pres·Jt :, \ :· · . .• appellant, (paintff) and th~. respondeμt (defendant) gave. creid±bie story on th~ easonabie balance of probabili tis •. ·At the tial' court, also in maintained ·the district court and in this court_, the· appellahtl • - - that he

was in the suit land since 1971 a.nd he·, cntinud to ·use the land without . ·. : . . . any interruption u;pto _;L994 :whezi" in pres.nt dispu:(;e over h ··said shamb:t was hatched out. • .. -1·· .. ,: j• •. :••;•!0 j" ; ,. I "'• • t 6 • The respondent on th. pth,er hahd claimed that· he. was oq. the .· suit land since 1936, also un:.1..1~\erx·up-ced.-~ : ·, ·f: :!· rt is the coiite:ntion of_ Mro .·Magongo that the ·appel;J.ate ··district court did not serioilslJ;:,wih. d;ilignce, scrutinize th~ evidence of the witnesses ,_and i:n; the ·result it faulted by dishonourint the evidence ,.·. . . . Of the'"plaint-iff.) s wit_ne?ses without assig 0 ning good reasoos as ;to why he '·• . • ... ; . '. .. . · ... -..·· did not believe their evidence a 0~ .. the premise:·- ne. surmised thc'!t the • t. ....... , appellate magistrate ·erred in disbelieving their ev.idenc9.because he wa ~ ..... :. . .... :. not the trial magistxate and~ 'theefore, did· nQj: 1:1.ave_.advantage of assessing ... ~ :- their. credibility ·a7nd 1 -d,·emeam.ouro. That,. kf the'· lear'ned-.appella.te '• • I •. ,. • •• ;. • : ,\ •• ;; • • • ., ' ....... · .. . . - • • . -· . --,f. district magistrate took pain ito· a:oaly.i:;;e. th. evidence properly he would . - . : .. ·- . r .•. have, arrived at the same conclusion as -the .tri_a],. --court did 0

• . . '·. ~ . . .. - .. Th .tespond·ent (defendan~.) was also -'pre.sent and he ubmi tted • ~ • I'. • .... quite briefly n .•· .. He said that his witnesses gave. evidence in support . ••,· ... of his case and that although he Sold the cas.e ..t the primary court .- .... ·.: ... he irlQ.q"i,t ._in the 'ditrict court ,pn appeal. Him :being _an old man, he ·.••••r •,;, f-.' retorted, could not be so biind and ai9s to purs·ue a case stupidly· · if he had ·no 1 1E!ga,l right _.in the subject ·ma:'tter' of complaint. Thus, •'. . .. h,e .iny-ite,9-. _this .c:ot, t·o review the evidence on record· a·nd he ~~ of the v:t8W that -it would come to the S(;lme conclusion as the district court.· ··. . .· :, . . ' Thus, he prayed that this appeal be dismissed with costs ·t'c him. . ! . I· ha.VE: painstakingly read .the entire proce.ed:i..ng. of both the ;:::-, .... . · primary· nd ·dist_rlct- courts, including the judgements o'f·:oth the . ~ . . . . - . . . :··. ·: . . ',"}';, .: courts below. A?t I have put into intimate consideration the · · .submissions mad,e., befcire me by both sides relating_ to this. appeal. • ' . ' : '. '' .- i ~ '! . . . • ·Indeed,.·,with.respect, I fall in ·with. the view of the learned advocate • • • • • • • ,. • o • ,:n • • ,, • • for .the· appellant, Mr. Magongo, that the op.J.,y _9-ues~ion to ask and decide

~ . '•", : •!:.• !, • ,";I,.•• - ~ " • • - . . :,;•, • .~ ' in this appeal is which· vidence betweerl the two sides is ·tyqrth of credit .. . - .•. "(f·•. ; and belief, regard. 0 being· had to the st;;_ndard of proof, wlirl,.ch in civil .. · '-: -.:.,;·, . matters is that o prepondrance ·of evidence on th·e reaona.b],e. balance i',i. .·_ 1-:· . ..... -~ . ' ~ • .·· ·t,.: . ,::,;( of probabilities. ·. r ::: . ,, '1 ... .l. rt is n<;>w. my quty . to consider .pn,d .decide ori,th1?-t qu'.e~:t:tofil . ftrjf, to a~\o{r ;rhat question wi t,h fair1tess ·and/ or tmptia1i ty red~~se . :. pas ·to ~ ·,had to the whole evidence, as adducel f o.t'e th .. trial court, First; ·I start'·fr-om the findini of.the appllte II)aistrate (see the quota.tion-supra:h··whereby it is claiink;d that· thei-f 'is evidence to _-r,· :. tl~: .ffrt _,that t~ uncle .b~ _th~.: prr5e 1 nt appJ.+9:nt pp.ased· the disputed ,!. ••or, ) . • , • . pi.ec~ _· of J.:-arid Ji~ t.]:1~ ,,.:p.reset re:sppdent: f-fY9nga_i,Kguwk.. . -e.:. qμestion :I_• .· ,; • .•.. ,, • "",· • . ·, • • . n 1 ow. is whether that-we.- can find;. that piece .. _o.f- eyidnce l.f.9f!J,. 1 the evidence . ... . . -,.. . . . . ·:· . c· ,. .. : . . . . . . . .. .•. ~ . • . . . . . . . ,;,:·, v· :r,.!:f'.~~d:=:ppllate mcJ.gi_s_t9-t.•.-.· ,,._ . . . : t .. , .,-r , , .. , .·.' .. ;:JL. ,..-I Y,_,.gpne:_thr~~b, ,the -evi1enc oL~}:l_e _a.ppei18.{lt>(PW_l) vecy carefully. According to him, his.uncle (baba dogo) hifted td tusubi --_:Y.tl.+.~~~o < sh:ba:was,:111\P,:ded _over; to, the a.pe'.l.lant•s father in 1961 • ... The sui t-shamba. lay idle upt<;> 971. :-,:. The ppella?1-t (PWl) got married . : .. . . . ~ . ·.. . .. and se~~led on t_ sai sμitlnd, :,tn.1971 •.. After three years they moved .. . . . . ·. . . . . . . . ·.•·· to specif.d.ed ·:;ettlements·-.-under· ·operation Vijiji, (apparently in 1974) but he continiid·:. to tak~: 'care of the shamba. · .I·ri.: 1992 the respondent• s child . ' . ' .. :. .. . .. _:·:. ..,. . ("mtoto. w.a. rndaiwa. 11 ), req-μested a,ppellant :f.r,.a.\piece of. shamba on \r1hich -- , : .. :. • ••·. ; C ', C • • ' ',, • • ' ,; . ' ' '•·•.•'-' to .gow ca$h ·crpps:_ .APP1.ia.t1-t. gred. :61.1,t. ':only. temporary for one year - providing niy "mistari ~~Hatu"··- · ·In: ·i99~ appilant stopped him/her? .. ' . ' . from .''continuing to use th. parcel of land:' . :tri .1994 accrding to the . ' .. 1.· ••• . .. ·: .. : ., . . . 0 .. 00 niiigundua tena _nilipopnda f11be~ na . X.. . . .. I' · .. _ ' . ' . ·... ..,. ,:.-.-,·;:,: nilimkuta mtoto wa mdaiwa arrtevurtiga eneo 1a shamba hilo na }rupanda mbeguu (sic)e I :In cross-examination by the respondent (DW1) 9 the appellant maintained and reiterated that the shamba in dispute was left to him by ttbaba. yangun

• 5 (implying •baba mdogd 9 -uncle) He (PWl) denied to have sold the land . .-, left 'by his ' 11 .baba 'indgon· · .·.Aci iri.- c6i's-eainaiio~"'by ',th~- cour-t, PWl -::Y :- re.':i:f:;ated tfut he d bee.n living in 'th·.,-t land for 25 yea.rs , .. , ... ::,..·uniterrupted~ . He·: furthe; denied 'tht the· respondent DWl) is his ➔- ----:J -·-- ··:--=-.·." . immediate neighbour to the shamba in disputeo His neighbours are Mswakili ( in the· Nor.th) 1 Kabushf (in the west), tviiee Nmura (in the ,·,._::·-.:·.,south):· and in the ,Je.st there: is a hill -a·na- immediately thereafter comes .,.;·:. ·:· Pl!le.rA¥,chena:, (with•:a -bush in ·between the appellant and Alichertja) 0 The \ ,)<?und .. o_f };le _latter. tw per,sns is a .common, pubic, ro~~~ which also :•:; .... ,!11arks the bcmngary of twQ yillq.ges - L·ichl..lf ·and. as,e-nda •. PW:).' s shamba, ?ccordipg to PWl, situat~~-iNyasenda vi],.lage. -.::· -; ;·. :r- .. . , .. . -.-r ,.. • I • .!. Bμsco,N'lmo;l..a (PW~) confirmed· that he -is the appeilant•·.s 'immediate ·:-- -., .. ::. ne.ighb:our. on--th~- valley on which they grw paddy, and ;that when he settled therein 1981 he found PWl cultiiatirig the lando ''l'heY continued :to cultive.4.;e the land up to the· date PW2 was giving evicl.'-encei · ·tn ·cross-examination, however t PW2. would not be able to corifirrh- aenfao \Ja.s 'tlhe 'occupant beyond ... :.:•,tM hill,: sav'e .. ,that he was .. quite :sur.e:3that he-'.hordered the;appellant near · .. ;•_ •.:,-following to say:, .a't the .. ·trial :court:· .: .. · r-.. .. , '.' . \ ..... · ·.· .. .. ashampa. 'bilo· hi ·la. baba, .. ya.ke'.tndog'o wa. rrtdai .r., - . ~ .alim:una tusoma. shule mwaka_'.1951- -- , .. ... ·· . . . ' ,.. . .·· . . alihamia Lusubi na shamba hilo alikabidhi . 'liba yak ni~~i' 'ria mpaka dai ·ali·1·' di-0 ,.:· .. , · ... · alilimiliki tangia mwaka 1971 .,.o,o mdaiwtf ·.,·· • 1.-iU ---- adai pi sehu ya)s;e. na- sisi..wecyeji-.tuna':"'' ...... . hamu ni shamba la mdai"( emphasis supplied) o F . . • • •-· ,. ,.,, . ., .•. ;Y :-. PW3 further confirmed in cross-examination to he etfect that the ·! .• shamba. in dispute is the property of the appellant since 1971 after the a'ppellant f - .. , litJ:ij;J a-·sed "11:;ay o H~, i~-- aio on re cord, in cross- · .. : examinaton. by.,tte cqurt,. to have said:.. .. 1 ~. • .. · .. • _ 1 . ·.:. :, . . ·.:... i ..

.~ 6 "••••' Kwenye mpaka_ aliwE:.ka mdai wakat~ anajenga. na kuna michongoma ya mdaie Kabla mda.i bajaoa alitumia ba.ba yake_ mdai mdogo (si,c). Mpaka wa ·mdai na mdaiwa· ld.mashamba ni mikonge na alpanda mdai.n l . r ~ ' And in rxamination, PW.3 stated: 91 mdaiwa a.napakana naye · masharild na hakuna matuta, :bali ni msitu tu bad~'fut::.. kUfyeka.' 1 In def:e.nce the respondent claimed that he started living on the .a.ilit-land i-nce 1936 •. ··He· further· claimed that the appellant sold· the shamba that was left 'by his uncle (babe. mdogb) ad- .so the shamba !h . •';•· dispute w~~-: n~~··her of :the· appellnt: no/ r s. 11 baba mdogon O That · -.":.::·'.' . . . . .· ... _::: .. : ·i .:;··, .... _ .=:-1 !,: • his sham):m.. (.appellant• sf Situates a·t N'y,anzeda' -nd not Ltichili.. Ih cr.oss-exa.inination.DWl insisted.' that·'th· appellant•s uncle•s shamba was sold by the ppellant t9 one Kagingil11.hihd •,:Kagh1da., BUt he e:enied ' . . .. ·. beirig present ·when_ .the ale: took .plc~~.'.: · x,is tl1%t· the-. appellant oversteppd· and. b!it)in-th~··· a.zia/'tL;{~~tci_ ITI (respondet). Oh . .. . . --, . , :-.,; .. ,, . ':.: ::L< . .>: . . +::.'.::.:::::.·'i . ... ··.'.· -· .... •; ·· , :;:·:- . , .:•, ·. . the same .'ltatmentlfe ·a~~~r~_::::. gi.μ:t to·-.the.{{fect -that the appellant bri/.:t1: ·h;e ,~th.ouf::~u1ti;;1ith~~ 1 land, and that the / ... <?!:- .. •, -'.:·Y-.: ·.; .... ·:·:-~~-- ' ·;:· .· . ·-: .. -: .: ! . ··.).: •,. respondet .. i,has.ed·Jμ.i)l. ( apellant) e -. . :- : • . > .. '. ::::.;··::·.:· ::. •. : :.:.L-- ,.. .>.· .. . . .... ;:-:.. . :: . '.'. Pet·"Malandera (Dw2) s_imply--clro.med that .the suit-land i'n dispute- -:{:·;r:or;····o~·-he repondent~:~ -il/··:·:~id 9t" tell_ the· . . I . cour:t how, .the. reSporident got the land and when.- In · cross exam:tnation : •. • ... • ~ • 1. • ~ • . he ~nswered the ·appellant as follO'..is:•· n 11 , 0 oe·· 11;ewe · .. unavamia. tuf 'bali . . ·'· baba_ yako alipewakuptishia ngt ombe' 1 -. Kanigwa Kabo (DW3) gave similar evidence as DW2o. Kahing6 Kagua (DW4) testi:fieq to the -effebt that in .. 1970 he was prmitted_b·;/the re·spondetit- to cultiv:ate .th··sh~~:in:disptite· • ,e • • and that he· usd a tractor and grew '.cotto~ · ·Later, -according ·_to ·nw4,: ' the shamba. was ],.eased. to the appellant,. who has ·now. refused to return '.•. . •r· The trial primary court visited the shamba in dispute -and drew sketbh map that was filed as pa.rt of. the record -in tμi~ qa$,e 0 '. I have

t l 7 studied this map and my judgement is that itts as if no sketch map was drawn because the map has no key and ii, does not point out the area under controversy. After analysing th_e evidence on record the way I have done., , I am inclined to a·ccept the finding .of 1l.e. primy court which is appended here for ease of reference, as follows:··. - . ivushahidi upande wa mdaiwa kuhusiana na shamba linalobishariwa ni hafif~ ·kuthibi.:.. ·tisha kama eneo hilo ni mali yake -tangia mwalw. 1936. .K'fa ,-ile mdai (sic) ndi.ye ' •.· ,. :'" anataja pekee eneo_ hilo ni mali · yake tang;i.a mwaka 1936-lakini mashahidi wake / .. . ~~J:··:· : . -- ~ · .-wote-. wana:e1e·~ kuwa mdai aliazimishwa:.- na mdaiwa 0 Mcira·inadaiwa kuwa mdai alivamia . eneo _ hil.q kama. shah;i.di u;aande .;; mdai¼fa :. --::-;·. _.; :,., JSU na SU3r waliyoeieza.. - Mara mdaiwa anada.i . w_p- eneo,·la· ·baba yake mdogo wa-mdai aliuza,. : · __ }-akini mashahi (SJJ2 na SU3) wanaeleza k~ . bab~ yake mdgo :wa mdai alipea ·t~ kuptisha ·:. mifugo." · ( enipna-sis supplied by -me)" · • e ,. l.. -~ . The 'trial primary court 'concluded -that the responde·nt·rs -evidence is weak, 1et alone the various discrepancies :as Iiointe;d ·but--ab·ove. In

• the result the tral ,·court,.u··~~:2:.,:1:...:,,::,. 1 .:r fC',x,,r:1. _:f.';1r th. appellant. . . . ... . .... . ....... ·) .. · .. • !.• -. I , • Wi tl{respe6t, I· ·-·fotally agree· witli '.the· 1earned a:ppellarit• s < "bOUrtSei that. the judgement" of th~ trial dourt· was -th~ best'·decision, ..... n:ot 6rily ori·the·--v:,erght :o:tvideribe oh re2ord'bUt' also:o·n the "fact that th. ember·~::r. ~~e-\rial. o&t\iad 6pp6rt:u'.riity 'to· bs-rve and; test the credibility and demeanour of all the• wi-tnesss in\iie wi tne'si box., · an dpportunity that is not availed - to an 1::-ppe]J.ate cQurt., In coming to the aboe conclus:t.on,-- I. have ·alsb put into view . . .· .. · ·.. ., ··.' . .:- .. ' . . . . the warning that was sounded inPETERS Vs SUI'IDAY POST (1958) E 0 A. 424; ··,• ,. also in SHANTIIAL M., RUWAIA VR (1957) EoA ;f?O and PANDYA CoR (19;J7) E.A..336, also approved by the same court for Eastern·Africa (as ·it then w~--

8 ' I in DAVID SHISIA OKEMO V.R, CR., APP., l't'.72 of 1971 (not sure if it has been reported or not), which·was to the follwing effect: nrt is not the function of a first appellate • I court merely to scrutinise the evidence to see if. there was some; evidence to support the lower court•s findings and conclusions; it (the appellate court) must mah.e its own conclusions. Only ten can it decide whether the magistrate•s findings should be supported 0 In doing so, it should make allowance for the fact that the trial curt has had the advantage ' of hearing and seeing the witnesses .,·.,.,.n •· ' In the instant case, with resect, the learned appellate district magistrate, as na judge" of f¥st appeal, while he was entitled to review the ,trial court 1 s evident record and make his ovm observation, he was also bound to make allowance, in that the trial court bad all ample opportunity to hear, see and assess the credibility of the I parties and the witnesses. From the face of the judgement of the I · appellate magistrate it is apparent that such allowance was not I tested, or given. In the upshot, I allow this appeal, quash the finding of the district court and restore he decision/finding of the primary court. , . In the result the appellant 1 is declared the lawful owner of the suit . ' land. If the respondent is;still on the land he should be evicted forthwith, according to law. Appeal allowed with costs. :t .. ·h ,-.-·--- ;;,r·--- i..1Y.1 - - AT MWAN'ZA: A. ·c.' MREMA . 23/11/2000, / •. ·, Delivered at Mwanza, On 23111/2000 'in the . absence of the parties. Mr. Magongo, Learned advocate for the appellant to be informed to this Judgement, als'o the Respondent. JUDGE I ;, jf JUDGE 23/11/2000