John Rukwi vs Marwa Machungu (PC Civil Appeal No. 131 of 1996) [2000] TZHC 226 (22 August 2000)

cn gc TN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT MWANZA (PC) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 131 OF 1996 ORIGINATING FROM TARIME DISTRICT COURT CIVIL APPEAL NO • 105/1995 FROM TARIME URBAN COURT CIVIL CASE N0.19/96 JOHN RUKWI •. •. .. ,• ,. APPEllANT versus MARWA MACHUNGU .. S. S• 55 SI • RESPONDENT JUDGMEI NCHAL1A 1 J. This is a second appeal filed by John s/a Rukwi against the decision of the appellate District Court of Te'ime which reversed the decision of the trial primary court at Urban primary Court Tar ims The dispute between the parties is in respett of ownership of a parcel of land of the size of two acrea which is owned under customary law. It is not disputed that the said piece of land orig±nUy belonged to the appellant John Rukwi. In 1974 the appellant handed dyer the suitland to one Mwikwabe Chacha to use it for an unspecified temporary time. Mwikwabe Chacha entered into the land and used it until in 1985 when he sold it to the respondent Marwa Machungu who bought it by paying a cow and three goats. The sale of the suitland by Mwikabe to the respe- ndent was not secret, it was witnes'ed and.authoried by the village Authorities of the area where the suitland is situated. Also the sale was done in the presence and knowledge of the appellant who is a cicr neihbotrr of the respondent. Moreover, appellants haniba and the chatnba in dispute share common bounda- ries, From 1985 the rrpondent entered into the auitland and started using it but the appellant simply kept quiet. It was 07 not until in 1995, ten years later, when the appellant filed the suit in the primary ce'zrt clring the return of the suitland.

bt brri3Ltbja sritoiii h oiiz4 ±bcr ori 8' rno' • aatr 'rthxw b;r, i Owl lc E,ZJ-a Itz& lo iriq .F etsw I I •±up fçe SiLi iiiiLteqqi e'f th;d ii nrdav b s j - tsjEi bn.L lo kq t-tI, oiu iic eif o rct e ±i.iw or srft cil ki,tcjT. iiroT r £cqq.cN,,o± 1roIed Lciiio .bztksj e,t Ic ux or1 r'io h2irq uk su onxi ô rriD o 9rt 1sbiuf zLtsçq.a rztr rfO e o:kf ytoqiTzt bgy •) ... - - . L1 1 JEOF' XI t-f-- I±U ±:hcf ftu bruI &IJ - - CJiflL h!:, rryJ3q \d fk tciiod cifw ur crIo.&v —eclI efffl of o6z. ,nAtwil ycf pI J If-tal lo o1sa etf P bii ±.r. .iQrI .bwka k bflZSi±LP r{ - G'thI zslz ezf lo sikxoriA Ltiv efil Ic sbs.Cwon71 bz.8 000q id 1Ob a.w si-,Pa eriJ oaEA 1, ,voeOM ehtrop3sr lo c-fo orfw -.hxiuod £TOtflfflO3 o i srfneth r 1L . 'iioq :. :t±& Ti br Ji.0 ri.± b - o ocj"r 'rii rno -fL • okt bi ri4s - la iiiE 'lo Fti ii ,iop tç vCuri ff cJ i± rii bn1 Ici 1ti 1s JUl r- r beIk I'iqq srff r1w . fl rw toi '- !frrt- tiitjjS b.tiije or IJJftt 9rt -D U1fl.ZIT )!ij flQ ort • nj n j tiro .rf,ii4) . r. - agf an tnzl rioj .f alonn taxI.?3' xuL iijj il bu b1'jj' :trth h:tu 'o. d tk or 1f 1 bnciTrr tJ o w±wi 4 y.d Al aCi ckt fh\ ch irk l :k .bJtk k b .-r's

• rct - e r.sJ ,L.b 7 e ôoz'q ft c:b. CJ - ec 0 Et vo-s'iot4 ehrroq - irf± rr 4 ':frn -'•!o ai. crLt _CVqT,, bgjoomrc.i £L'r1J rjt rL zth;t .• •).. 4 j-r! r:I r' ••-..c'-

:- o; ' -. -_ r':' r7 .cup 'ru . rfcz

:. ./- r - - h • .s.1 -.Tb fk -i- I 11 .Lhh!t tJ :' J • : - . I1tI L- r - jt ;' •_; - -- -•r) .-•V '7r

•••• - •4 •:--- •y' •I y •'j

. -r--- :5 •' ;r -- ..--

• • -. - - - • -• : ¼ 1 4 1 p

7

• .2 - So, in fact the appellant has been out of the suitland from 1974 to—date, which is a period of 26 years. The appellant has his own ahamba which he continues to own and cultivate without any interference. On the available evidence, it is my finding that the appé1laxtte claim over the suitland is defeated both by the principles of acquiescence and by esteppel. Accordingly I uphold the decision of the appellate District Court 1 , The appeal is devoid of merit the same is hereby dismissed entirely with costs here and in the twi courts below4 Order accordingly. Appeal dismissed. J)(J M.D. NC1ArLA JUDGE 22/8/2000 31/8/2000 eram : M.D. NchaUa, J. For Appellant: Absent with notice Far Respondent: Present in person C ,C. Restituta Order: Judgment delivered in open court in the presence of the respondent only, and in the absence of the appellant who defaulted his appearance for no known cause when he was fully aware of the date of delivery of this judgnent. This the 31st day of August,

2000. Right of appeal is declared and the same iF according to law, ii '( 4j thJT/ M.D. JUDGE AT MWANZA 31/8/2009