Mwantumu Omari vs Mhando Amiri Seif (DC Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1999) [2000] TZHC 461 (17 August 2000)
Judgment
IN" TIIE ITIGU CuURT OF 'l110JZ:J.llil.
AT .. T.i\11GA..
DO CIVIL APPEAL, uo.19 OF 1999
(Orgi.nating from Civil Case lfo .. 26/93 of District;
O,crn.:i:~ of %; !,,-. . ('.'t 4'e;.a}
scnt Respondent anc.l, o:r• :.1is aG9nts be declared
unlawful. o,mers of the house and vro:perty on P.l.ot 1:r.o. 16· TII.ock
"F" Mwamboni. Tar1P.P,•
{:b); That she (AP11ella:nt): be declarec1 t).te ri@tfu.l 01mer o:f the
·'suit. property a.".:d the Respondent>. namely i'fil;JTIXt li.HiJ.l UECF·, be
estopped from making any clai..ms and tresspass.
I.t is common grorn1.d the.t the trial District Court found n11d held
tl1at the suit against tll.0 Respondent w2,s tiE1e barred. and the Hatte:r was
:oos-judicata. It was 011 tb.0 basis of the fore50:iJ.1
6
t:iat the tr:i.2J.
District Court dismissed the suit. Beine ac:~;1..-.ieved by that decision she
has now appealed to tM.s court.
• ••••• /2·· -
lf .AlITUMU OW.JU. AP.eELLiiFT.
VERSUS
l'ifr-VU'Tl)(1 AI'-IIL-U. S1ID1 o. o o o,. o ~ o o "" •••• •,. P01J.D.illlT.
J" U D GEM Z HT.
J • J. MlGf.P.'iA, J
T'.:1.is o7J.J?peal arises from the decisio11 of t).1e District Court of Tansa
in Civil. Case: No .. 26· of 1998 w'.aere. the pr-esent., '.Ap:pellant, namely
HU;l'ITUMU Oi'!J..ABI, unsuccessfully, soU@lt from t:.1e District Court,. iu-li0ralia,
for the following orders:
(
. )'
a) That the p
2
Di .is not irrelevant to mention that :lc."l.V:i.ng :raga.rd. to the 001.U'Se
E :propose to take I. :rill. not r:;tate the faots. T'.u.e gravamen of the
Appellant
11
s complaint, as is evident; from tl10 records, is that the
aforestated house, the subject matter of these proceedings, 1ras sold
to the Responden:tt•s father, nai11ely AlvfffiI SErF, by one JUMA H/D.linADI.
I:b is also not irreleva;.1t to mention that the mm0rsb.ip isr;ue in
respect of the said house was resolved b-
3
tc d0cision of tlus court
in the case (PC} Civil Appeal Noo91 of 1970. ln tilat jud.sument
.rur.1£~ HA.RIDA.DI was declared the ormer of t:rn house in q_uestion, In
Civil Appeal Ho-.9 of '.1574 this court (Jonathan, J).- as he th0n i·rasJ
reiterated or echoed, so to speak, the decision of this court in
(PC) Civil Appeal Ho.91 of 1970.
It was on the basis- of the foregoing that tlle J)istrict Court
in Civil Case lfo.26 of 1998, which is a subject matter of the
presont appeal, found and held that· t!le matter had become res ju.1.licata;
a.YJ.d dismissed the su.i. t filed against the Respondent.
I: wish at this junctu..i.""8 to tell the . .P.J?:::>oJ.lant that; a.ftor those two
hi&h court _docisions (sui)l."a).", the ,Appellant Ghould ha,-ve b1om1. that
the question of 01-mership ol that house, in ·!:;l1e absence of her
purchasing it, as for as she is concen1ed, had come to an end il1 1971.
She should have not put the time of this court, and an,y la.1r court for that
matter, as far as her olairns for o'mership al"e concerned, to improper
use. The A:Ppellant should further lQ1ow that there must be finali t;-r to
all li tigationso It uould appear that tb.e Al1iX3llant does not mmt to -·
accept ·tb.is naked and bitter :::-eali ty of life. This explains,- a,s has
been demonstrated in the judgement of the DiotJ:'iot ·court w;.,,:i_ch in the
subject matter of this ap11eal, irl\y tho ·1-..v:::)ellant llas ti.relessly; al1d
•o• •• ••/3
3 -
on: several. o.ccassions,' been to the Sia.te Tious0 and Rr:ime 1fo1iater''s
office on the same issue. It is 11rf pions ll.o-po that the a:PJX)lla::1t will
this time pey heed to EU ad:viso to her that; i:;;hG should not lraste ller
time and substancefino:i.1ey on fruitless li titioi1 that will only ser-..rc
to inflame ill-feeling both to herself z,nd J...or litigations.
In the upshot, thic appeal fails, the decision of the District
Court is hereby affirmed, and the A.ppellant is condemned to pajr costs
of this court and tl-:.ose below. It is so o:."U.0red •
.JU.Daffi
17.8.2000
DELIVERED at TAiiGA on this 17th day of' Ju.:;u.st
1
2000 ill t~1c presence
•J