Issa s/o Guzuye vs Saratiel Nchana (PC Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2000) [2000] TZHC 375 (7 November 2000)

IN TIlE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA

AT TABORA (Pa) CIVIL. APPEAL NO, 22 OF 2000 (Orignal Civil Case No. 16/98 Kalinzi Primary Court and Civil Appeal No. 55/98 of Kigoma District Court) ISSA S/0 GUZUYE .... •. -. APELLANT V E R S U S SARATIIJ s/a NOHANA •0 • - RESPONDENT J U D G IhI

EN T J . . This is a second appeal. The appellant Issa Guzuye has lost in the two Courts below. He had sued the respondent Saratiel Nchana in the Primary Court of Kalinzi, in Kigoma istrict, claiming % of an acre of land. The •se was dismissed. He then appealed to the District Court Icigoma, and here the appeal has been dismissed again. He now appeals to this Court 0 Tho facts of the case are rather olear and simple: The appellant was a, village elder in that village of Mkigo in Kigoma Rural area.. In 1982, some farming places were distributed to people, and the respondent got a. portion. It is said that the villagers were allocated 140 metres by 100 metres of land. As I say s that was in 1982 The appellant then left. It is not disalosed where he went,, In 1987, he came baik and asserted that the appellant had eaten away a portion of 4 of an aI±e leading to a valley. He started to assert that the 3 i4 acre area was his, he Then, on. again, he leftiace for an unknown place.

(PC) . Civ. App.22/2000. - 2 According to the appellant, he says he fell sick and went to that other place whi.h he does not want disclosed He came back in 1998 and opend this case. The respondent Sarcel Nchana has denied- these allegrttions all the way. He says the place was ren to him. He said the acre the appellant talks of, is a portion that leads to the valley, and is an area which, acrding to the e.11-ation, is always taken by whoever occupies the higher lafld.- So, he was iven it and has been cultivating it since 1912. '4 1 1 Now, as pointed out by the first appellate Court s the appellant cannot be given that pie.e of land which th& repodertt has occupied and cultivated since 1982. At best, if the appellant was mindful at all, he ought to have been there in 1982. He came and peeped at the area and then went away and has surfaced in 1998. The appellant cannot be dispossed of the land he has hold for a period since 1982. Mind you, again, this is a second appeal: The issues, in this case, were, actually issues of fact: The two Courts be]w have held that the piece of land an re) belongs to the respondent..- 1 here these are concurrent findings of facts of two Courts, a third Court, (on a second appeal) should be loath to disturb those concurrent findings of fa.t uflless the reasoning leading to the holding of the facts are perverse or there a . re glarring irregularities in the reord. Frankly speakinI see no su•h irregularity 0 The appeal is disiissed with costs. At Tabora. J. E, .- CMASANCHI 7th Novembe, 2'bOO,. , . JUDGE. -- - S MR._BOAZ: For ape1ant. RESPONDENT: present in:person.