Juma Bonza vs Mama Clementina Joseph (PC Civil Appeal No. 50 of 1999) [2000] TZHC 439 (18 April 2000)

IN 't'HE HIGH COURT OF TAN'ZA.N.L'I. fl..'t !P::,m;_ PC. CIVIL APPF.AL NO• 50 OF 1999 (C/F HAI DISTRICT COURT CIVIL APPEL) (NO. 14/99 ORIGINAL HAI K1TI PRIMARY) (COURT CIVJIIL CASE NO 7/99) JUMA BONZA 06000000(' vs MAMA. CLEMENTINA JOSEPH APPELLANT (LEONARDA) •••••••• RESPONDENT JUDG:I;MENT BEFORE: HON: E.N. MUNUO, J In Hai Kati Primary Court Civil Case No. 7/99 in Hai District, the plaintiff Ruma Bonza sued for tho repossession of one acre of land located at Shiri Mgungani from the defendant Mama Clementina w/o Joseph. The trial Primary Court dismissed the case with costs whereupon the plaintiff preftt. Hai District Court Civil Appeal No. 1Lt of 1999 which he also lost. The plaintiff thereafter lodged this second appeal seeking to reverse the concurrent decisions of the courts below. One Daudi Joseph Hdee, the son of the defendant represented the defemdant under a power of attorney. The parties conceed that the father of,. the plaintiff gave the suitland to the respondents•s husband way back in 1975. The plaintiff claims that the late husband of the respondent was a -re licencee on the land so he should ~ be allowed to reposisess the said land for it belongs to him as the administratetr l of the estate of his late father. The respondent maintained that their family has been occupying the lan1 in dispute fo:gbver 20 years so the long possession ! ' coferred title on the respondent. Ths courts below upljeld the concept of long . conferred . possession saying it ttle on the respondentt The issue is whether long porssion confer.red title on the responde•t, Yes~ the long poseession of over 20 yeare of occupation of the material .. land by the r~ ➔ ent conten-eo. tita on the respondent, Six defence witnesses gave corroborative-- evidenee to the effe•t that the respendent•s late- husband cleared the bush and occupied the virgin land n...., •o!lstjtuting t,he suitland in the ·riU fifties. In view of the etrong defene ev~denae,: 'the. plaintiff' e ttaim that the respondent's husband oecupied the suitland in 974 is not probable. " j i' bacause even S.M II, the patlaintiff• witness stated that althou15h he was the respondent•e neighbour he could not tell how the re5pondent a,quired the suitland • • • • 2/ ••• '1f t! I I,, I Ii' I/

"The plaintiff's ether witness, ·s.M. III :Mohamed-Omari aloo <li<J not know how . . .- . the. \te~ ~ th.a .suitland whic_h :he .said the pla.1.nt:iff 1 s father bought in 1947. Since tJ:1.e2 a·ppal.l,a.nt .addiu&e:l no cncre-te eviden<:e to .establish his titl over iJFthe land in dispute, the long pc>esassion of the land by the 7':Qs~~~ ~~shea.j:A 8 respondent I s t_ile over the said li.nd.,' ,, - , . . FoP tbe rea.,e.oo.s. -e-tat ahov~ tti:~ ap-.i_:ieal is la-eking in merit. Th& c,eurt ~ the dee~ of the eourts below th~:i.-eby dismissin& the aPI_--:>eal. The appeal is. -a-ceol'di.ngl;v tlismis..ed with -costs. It is so orderedo At Mo3hi thi~ 18/4/2000. Appellant: In person, Respondent:!n person. -.,. f u --, .. , .·'/" I ,· -,,:-'. ,; -.,..7 I , hi:-·,, ' '1, I : ,,; \ ~ i, •··. i'. ·• . }A.·: \ '4;._ . ""··· . - __ , -' . ' ., ' ... --- . / E.No MUNUO, JUDGE, 18/4/2000 ./·, i . \ -1 ,--:· .... -·-I:···-:.· __ ... __;< .••. ,, E.N. MUNUO, JUDGE, 18/4~000