Robert Kiagu & Another vs Salehe Saidi (PC Civil App. No. 26/1998) [1999] TZHC 387 (24 December 1999)

.. • > .,, p • VJ ~ RlGB COtJB'll OP 'l'.t.NhlW. ' !f "" T.ANOA • •. PC ClVlL AYP. NO. 26/1998. · • :· : I ' • • ' , , ' , . • , t • 1• IO~ JCI&GU ) .• . • : · • ' , • ' 6 ~ KOMBOI«>. )•!•.••••••••••••: •• ,APP:- ·.AJPt '). .,· i:; ·111..,.· ;1 ·.' • 'm!R. . . . . • : ... ~~.... . ' . ..a.u.:st:a 84ml ., • ••, .,. • ..... •• • ~ ••• •., • • .WPO

• . . . ,, • t • •

• ~ ,, . 'lhia appeal ~ l)efQN ~ ooui-t, on secom appeal. It ·1s iii . . , I . : , : i'· l! ·•· .. . ,.. .\ .. , . ft,-- -4 .a.~ t1f J,ao4 · 1'tlczz edTJ,ao,t 94. to l>b- .l"eaatretlal ~ ~ ~ • _. ,;a ll ground that. ~ '1-4. -•••••w:,:·,. · ••• • I , , , • ~ ,J 1• .' : ' • • · C, »o=auut ops, namel.Y orange trees, be,ne1J4 l>J.anta -4 oooonuts. . 1 • "\I• '~ ' , j 11 1 f•, . l \ I,'"? ,) • , -,/ .. J 4! l'J ' r~ I es!1t ~~~l~~~~ ~ ~~~ :qr: ~~~qu; ~ JCOD> dB!) ' f': ~ f ~~~ !farr -~~f ~~~ District ~ ~~ ownei-s ot the &tores,44 paroel ot land.e lJeing a,g:rieved ~ the ' - • J,. ' t ..,.. ··: . ' . .. ' ·' . ' . ent ana. decree of the unanimous 4eoision ot tbe tial oouri he· d ,n.,,.,. l)ietrit Ooun ~ • • ., OIJ-4&l 1 ···~ diYdce4. -tha :ce, 1 • .._ ... ,~~ , the ~~~ ?Wner of the·· and now in cliepute, It ia 80,i.iat ~ .uoJ ■ toa that ~ p;resent appellants I· ~ >t 1 , , 1 ,._ ·I ► .. have preferred an ap~~ 'to this court, seek tor the i-eatoratwi .if. .... m•,uw,,,o '4aoision ot the Mba:rao imar.Y Coui-t. ·' ';· :: !l"b.o.-1aa&. ,. a - ..o»o, lai!!.,olt ...-4 . .;*,;a¥,t. ~ ~ ~ ~ ar• • J,tr•-. ~ • ~ J:rMPondwso;ed using the land in dispute, afteJ: h• had -o.1.e..a. it. ff 1s apparent ~ ... , ' • ' f tit, -! ;• ,. I :• • r « ~ ... ~ e Piao eed.inge ot both cow.wta below that the suit property has ' '. .. ' i I. ·. ·, ... .. . I ~ -:. ~ .. ,. • ' ' ~ ' • ; •• . ' • • ·, .• ita '?O~~ ~ oner,'11~~ on, ~~e fs ppeli,it 1 ft is e ap~~~~ • cue •a &f'. ~ ~~enee4 th' ieepOnden .?"'the land in ,i . .t is Ge? .their ,o! •t thq_ ~ for-bidd e Reapond_t to po • r· u , 1 , , ir, • • •4• . ,f I 't , ,.,u11,• t orops. •• <t ; · On the otherhdt ~~ was the Respond•• oaae in both courts bel.011 and in this cot as well that' he is not an invi:toe or licensee bece the· s1oond APpellt had sold to h the ·std..t property for a sum of llha. 7,IJOO/•• It is ·1~ his. testimoq 'that h~ began planting the P~$8llent !o- • , I 1' ,I • ' • •• '• ''\ • J I orops sometime in 1992 i.n4, none of the IJ)pellante refl'eined him from so d.oina• • • ' I ltl • ~• . 1 o" lt ie his oaae th_at ~7 thei.'r oond:uot Ul4'Y cannot now be heard w aaaerl o thf!i.J' owneJ:ship olaim over the suit Pl"OPC'V• •

2 I have carefully gone through the x-eoords ot both courts below a.ad l have alao caretul.1¥ gone throusb, the evidence adduced in the oou:rt of ti.rat iutance. This being the second appellate courtrwill only reve:rse the the tincli.ngs ot tact of the first aPpellate court if' it had misdirected itself on the evidence. It is also a general rule that the first appellate court is entitled to reverse findings of facts of the court of first instance where it is clear that those findings of facts were not based on the evidence, or where the inferences are plainly wrong. ( See I Mi4l;Alll 'A.TA V• v:ERJI ( 1971) n.c.». no.94 and. lj@lJSI ABl>AitYH v, SAXILU SUNGI ( 1979)LRT no.4) In tb.e instant case, the court of first instance had fully a.ddnased its aind to the credibility of the witnesses and in rrq view there was reason that warranted the first appellate court to interfere with its findings. Besides, I would have not faulted the decision of the first aJ>pellate oourt if the findings of :f'act and its conclusion in the court of first instance was not arrived at reasonably or that it can not rationally be aupparted (eeea LALAT4 lf@A,NGALQ!E V. gNRY MWAMBDI4 (1979)L.R.T. no.3) According· to the recorded evidenoe it is indisputable that the land in question belongs to the first APPellant. It is on that basis of the foregoing that I alll unable to accept the assertion made by the Respondent that he has acquired ownership of the aui t property on the basis of the monies that he had given the second APpellante I am unable to infer a sale of the suit property from tha.t act itself. The latter does not ipsofa.oto amount to a. sale transaction by axry stretch of imagination. Besides, there is a.n impressive body of evidence to whiah no exception ca.n be taken that the ResPondmlt was a mere invitee. There is a claim of authority to the effect that an invitee can not disPosses his/her lost ot his/her land whatever the length of his/her occupanoy ( see.Sit~ y, §61,IM ( 1972) n.c.». no.140 and J~W•WfGA v. NDISIA ( 1969)n.c.n. no.204 to mention just a few decisions). It is also on the basis of the foregoing that I hasten to af:t'irna the order for compensation for the uneZlh.ousted improvements. As to do other- wise will a,nount to injust enrichment on the part of the appellants who have not enpended labour in improving the suit property. The rationale behind that proposition need not be over empliasised. It is both commonsense and equitable• to S83' the least. A,pparentl.y, the trial court did not give the value. It is now ordered that a valuation be made and the .~eveloper namely Responde11t be pa.id. In the upshot, the decision of the first appellate court is hereby set aside and that of•the court of first instence restored albeit with the variation I have made in respect of valuation. ••• /3

• 3 - lJl the lisht ;.f the ered history of this case, I consider ~ •P 1ie make ~ oder as to cots. It is so ordered. DV.,Iv.mED at. 'l'ANGA ~ th.is ~~ f" 2ti1 5 1, ,......_ -.... ___ ·w:eeene ♦ ,, th •-»-• + • ., .. ~-..-, • • -,p .... ~ ( . .. , .,,_ .. .. . /' .. ; .,., ·-::.-;;.·.,. "j(/;-.,(,,..,,,!r:Jvvr,;. ~-ia,wi 24/12/1999