Paulo s/o Difa vs Kwambago Village Council (Misc. Civil Application No. 13 of 1997) [1999] TZHC 479 (5 October 1999)

.. i,1ISC. CIV.,API'LICNI1IOl; no. 13 OF 1997 P.t:i.UJ...O S. ·..r,. iri ·; D.l.FF A ., •••••••• ~ • • • • • • • .. .. • • U>PLIC!J'1 1 ' ' KU;.) . ..:J3.!,.GQ VILL~'...G'J COTJI!CIL aoaooo-oeeooeooo n U L J _ _l.i_Q. . R:JSPOl'TIJEJ.T This is an ap-p],icc.:tion for leave to 3..ppau,l to the Court of :;.ppo{tl of 'i;,,n7,anie, 0 The Applic,:-,nt (RAULC s·.rrrs:.~ D}.JF'A) is aggi.'ieved by tl10 decision . of this Court (i•;OSJ.II, P.Il..,h., in:'Jxtenied Ju_risdiction) inDC.,Civ 0 Appeal D 0 • 2/97 • 'I'he b;:i,sic fc,cts lead.iriz to t.:.ifl development a.re simple and not disputed., It b coi:iuon &-'O'.U'ld thut sorneti,:;0 in 1975 the applicant hc?rl , volunt2rily suL"rerid,:-ed a pai·cel of l;,,nd to tho village _c:uithority. at Knernb;:;,go in Lushoto :1Jistrict. T].,.J n .. 0 . .i,1".:? wc,,n ul timatel:y al.1002.ted to C:8-.B,."..GO PRIJ,:··y 3CZOOL., · It is furth1?x· common @.'.ourrl that subseruently the school did G.ovclop the' lr.1rrl in :_uostion. Somtime in 1594 for reasons not vc:'Y cle/Xi.' to 1.1c the l.pplici1.nt r;ou,Lht for re-possession of the foresaid larrl.. Tac District CoLtl.'t at Luchoto held that the Applicant 11a:;; entitled to cori1pcsation for the L'..1",d thc..t the Resportlcr:t ho.cl. ac<:[Uired fi'or:, the ippliccDt. It uwn.rded mis. 12 1 578/= to the Applicant on the basis that tho ... 'q)pH02,nt was not allo(:Gd to harvest the trees from the On appec. .. l to tliic court it 1;12.u h0lc1 inter alia that the ~~P:)licant ( tb.en .i: .. ppello.nt) 112.d uharv-estcd hiG 1I·ocs before the han:i ove1· 0 " ('flle GB_Phasis · is supplied) there W&,s tlle:ccfo,.•o no 'basis for the issuance of the award of 8lls. 12 578/=• .It C',0DBG.:,L1ently set aside the coTi:pens:::. tion o:,?do:c • The .Applic..,,nt u:ccues that ha.vinf; rcgr:rd to the fn.ct th,:.t the ln.rd in question ,,c:.s :not ilI'operly n.llocdod to the ne_spondent he wa,s thus entitled to re-poosession of it 0 In the a,lterno,tive ho mair.1.tc,ins tha.t he wn □ cnti tled to cor.rpens..::.tion <-~s juctifi,J,bly awarded ·by the District Gom•t.

I I ,·1 I I I I I I I I I I [. I I, ! . 2 .... It was countered by the Resporldent that there. w2,,s nothing advanced by the Applic2.11t that would wurrant the interference of the Cot-11'.'t of ... Appcnl in the mr-,tter. This court wc,s thus urged to dismiss the applicationo I have dispo..ssiomtely considered the arguments. of both sides, n.hd. the corresponding affidavits filed he:i:eino I am, however 9 unable to c1ccede to the arguments rc.ised in support of the n.pplication. The Lpplicant hns not, in my conside1od view, raised sufficient grounds oi substance thnt war-rants considorr,tion of the highest tribup,-:1,l of the ln.nd. He has not raised questions of law that eminently .-:rua.lify it to be tr.Jken to the Court of Appc.::·,l of T0,nsanL. ;s rightly held by the Court in 81,LG0B.·y ::sT.:cT·:;3 LTD (j; OTIIJl1S V• :PifJSDNIR J3AN1{ Ao G. fJ 1) :!ieL. 17 ct Pn£::,"e 21 there must be an orguable case meriting the consideratio,n of the Court of Appeclo In the insta,nt ca.se there is none. Ii;i.1ihe upshot the npplication is dismissed with costs. It is so ordered: ' .. :-!-:1-1 . . ,.. ---··I//',,,.{· .. ,/ •./''\ .' ~ ( J.J o kK1•:AS() JllD.GE Read in the presence of the parties Hho 2-.re present in persona •• ;/ ✓- ~ ._,;- !/'} (<r .J 1,; /,,. · ,,f" '-. JTIDG:8 5/10/99 \ ,'