Laurent Michael vs Juma Haji ((PC) Civil Appeal No. 59 of 1999) [2000] TZHC 441 (27 April 2000)

..... - BEFORE~ __!! N. MUNlJO t J • IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZ,iIA AT MOSHI (PC) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 59 OF 1999 m:STRICT cou:(T CIVIL A:;;;FEAL NO. 25/1999 (ORIGINAL MABOGINI FR. COURT CIVIL 13/99) LAUP.L"NT MICHAEL APPELLANT Versus JUMA HAJI RESPONDENT In Mabogini Primary Court Civil Case No. 13 of 1999 the plaintiff I,aurnt Michael successfully sued the defendant Juma Haji for the recovery of about 3 ecres of land ituate at Mtakuja Village in Moshi District. On appeal by the defendant the District Court at Moshi Civil Appeal No. 25 of 1999 reversed -.,) decision of the primary Court The plaintiff then lodged the present ippeal seeking the restoration of the decision of the Primary Court. ' The plaintiff, Laurent Michael testifi,ed as SM.1. He stated that he inherited the suit land from his late fa.ther Jt)nanuel who purchased the land in question from one Mohamed Haji on the 25/2/94 for shs. 7,000/= per the sale agreement exhibit A and its receipt exhibit Bo The plaintiff called his neighbours SM2 and SM3, and the village Executive Officer, SM4, to corr0borate his evidence. lt was the case of the plaintiff that in February 1999 the respondent laid claim to the land in dispute giving rise to this case. Hence the suit for repossession The defendant stated that he inherited the land in dispute so it beJ.0r_C"',, to him, ln this appeal the appella11t listed eleven grounds of appeal faulting the appellate District Court's decision of reversing the Primary Court• s judge;;·.o-ct o · .The reepondent filed eight grounds -of reply supportin; 0 the decision of the apellate District Court. Th issue is who has title over the suit land. The regpondent lawfully possessses the suit land because the unsign:> -~ 1 e agreement, Exbibit A Xlegates the appellant 1 s tille over the suitl13.nd. lf ,~:1e father of the apt>t""llant bad purchased the material land, the sale agreemen·.; would have been signed by the vendor, the pu:rcr..aser and also by their respect:i v- wi tnesses thereby making the sale document authentic. • ••••• /2

2/- An unsigned sale agreement like is the document exhibit A is of ,no evidenth.l value. lt ought to have been rejected by the trial court for want of authenticity. Being unsigned, exhibit A is in admissable and accordingly rejected. ln those circumstances the decision of the appellate District Court is correct and is accordingly upheld. For those reasons the appeal is lacking in merit. The appeal is dismissed with costs. It is so ordered. Appeallant: in person. Respondent: in person. E. Ne MUNTJO, JUDGE, 27/4/2000 . ·. . ..- .... <.:;.:'"::: .. -.:c,.i., E. N. MU;JUC, ,JUDGE, 27/4/2000