Dr. Prosper Ndaskoi vs Simon Kamakia and Another (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 15/1996) [1999] TZHC 181 (3 May 1999)

IN THE RESIDmT MAGIST:-J.TE' S COURT OF .§USHA ,,<; .' Nf k1U.3Ii/;. · · .. ., '. · ., .. · EITENDED. APPELLATE JURISDICTIOlJ .. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 15/1996 ''' ., ·: (c/:& f,/c:-cnr11· APPEAL 19/96) · ·- ·::,:PR. :PRQSER NPASKQ].: o.o • • • • • ~ • • o • o.o APPELLANT· , V• .:-:;. Versus SI.MCA'! KAHAKIA & ANarP.En • .., , • • • • •.• RE.'3PQ,JJENT • JUDGEEENT . --- This is an appeal against the decj_si01~ of the court of Resident :.:·1 ~ .. :,·-:.· .. :·.·.• • .-:-,f·, 1··. : ..... ·1--:;· __ ;.' - , ·.!· .!. • .i :: _· •• Magistrate .A.1,..usha ('A. C., Nyereret then SHH) dismissing the appellant-'s . · .:, ·,:-,: -: .. · -- •·;,.°": - '.-.T .• · · I; :· J ..... ~ :· . " - • clai111 aGainst the reqporrlents fo a piece of unregisterAd ].f:md masuring ' ·c. .'',: approximatel.y 60 x 60 met·es 1 l)cated at ICijenge area in Arusha. The proceedings as reD.ected in the .. trial court record reveal that· ... t . .f...... '°.:.:' .... -. i.f .... >: ::'.t·.·· ... i:-:, :...::: . ... , . ,. :·:-. on 19/10/6? .. th.appellfil1::f:. Dr. Prosper Ndaskoi p'Jrchased from the 1st .. ·'· .. - .-,-:. .. . .'/ !.'·:: ;. :- .· .. respondent Simon Ka-nakia 9 a house situa\eid · on plot o .. 494 IIT at Kijenge ·. .. , ~ . -· 'i. . .,. f, • • \ i_· ,, ·_ 'i . · .. - :, - '. . in Arusha for .-s1s. 29 million ... The sale 'agreement (exhibit PI) expre- ssed the mode o.f payment tc he. cash l1:iur-n s5.gning of the agreement and ' ' . ' "' ' . - ' ' ' ' ·::' " pas.session Has to _'?8 ,.effected upon signilce; of the agreement and payment of the purchase price. The 1st respondent stated that the sale agr-ee- ment was prepard by. l'h· ~ Hirambo 1 an advocate, · and that ·he 1as paid. -- ·-··· -· the shs. 2. 9 millien in cash before Er. Hirambcf and gfarited t'lie·. ppe- llant immeclte· psessn @'he ho1,1se., 'Iri"it"tne appellant thr<;mgh " ': -·' '' ,; , ... : - .. ' ,.· ' ' ' his brother in la.,w I•1athew .. Lyimo (PW.. II) runs a bar tinder the name and .. ,:,., .- style of Bo:ndeni bar., . . ;,.··- ;, .. :-. :· . .. : .. . . :\ ·-.:. "; --· '.- :· ::.:. ---':-_·- : ... _ .. On 2/') /88 the applla,nt an.ct thE?,_ 1qt resp•ndent executed another .·.,. appellant a fai•11o., the suitland, .,situated at Kijenge next to the house on plot No. 494. ' !

.~ ---- - ,..--:• :=.::t r-, - '. ... . . ·, 2 : : .. The a:tea measuring apμ'"CL'nate]Y 60 :x 60 metre's .. -and contains coffee The_ 4gc.eed piice was s).'\s J., 5 :million payable :L.'1. : ·. :.. . . ;,.: . . ...... . . . . (. and banana plants. two instalments The fir st instalment shs. 1 million was payable en execution of the agreement:: arid, ··aecording to clause) under "•ther conditions" in the said agreement th(, 1st respondent uas required te deliver immediate possession of the .prO?el'tY :r1 pi:tyment of the 'dvance . .:. <-~~~- .· ~ .... ': :.:.:•tt\i· purchase price and on signing •f the aveement. This agr-eement, like the previous one 1-;as prepared by Mr .. li.uambo. The 1st respendent was -:: paid the sb.s-1•million tl1e safneJday befoie rk. Mirambo., The 1st responcl.en!i-•:said so, in so many ·ior:ds., ·.. . . . •'. .. Howeyer- ,he,:does not. appear•''t'o' i:iave 'delivered vacar.t Pff'.,:,PR._qj.0 ,,f' the premises.. He sru d that in thP.··1:i~·Pv:i ;,11 s --~~;em0.;:;t, (:.111..i_hi-t Pl) the appellant 1-Jas indebted to a tune of s·hs .• 600,,'ooocib-··tr;t:-ut f · .;: . the shs.. 1 million paid in ·r9 spect of tl 1 e othe ... ~ agrer.1ent (exhibit ~~) . •·' he deducted. this $Um. The •appellant therefora paid only_ shs 400.000:00 in respect .. of'. the se.corid agre·ement ( E'Xhib:i.t P2) eu1d ·that the 1::ialance shs. 1. 100. 000:00 was to be p-3j:d by ;Ji/10/88. It was on payment ef the balance by the due .date that he 1,ould C:.eliver vacant possession of the sui Uand. to -the appellant On the other hand the appellant said that the shs 1 milli9..n he - paid was in r.espect'··ef the second agr'eement (exhibit P2) only an:l.. that!;; . irnmediatel.y thereaft,r the 1st respondent granted him vacant pessession of the premis.es and put PW. II to.-•versea the sarrieo A traditional · ceremony attended iJy' the parties and mmbers of their families was held ,. ~ . .. ' j.n tM premises. t.o c6rnmemera:te the· o·&asio14 After the ceremony the appellant le ft for the li::J wne.n:: ··11 ,.__;-}'~~ ·.r.::rr- gain. He lei't shs 500.000:00 ,vith _PlL: IL.to~ pvme!'.1:t- to __ ls ;espondent' 3:s l~st· insta-1 .. 1.meriti in accordance wi-gh the agr-eement. • .• /3

3 : : PW. II stated that he made sei'eral attempts mt td no avail te pay the 1st respc Jent tha shs 500.000 :00 by 30/10/88; Acco:rding h him the 1st responq.ent simply refused-· -to take the money saying that. he was waiting for the appellant to ·r1l&rn ·to Arusha~ The appellant returned in September, 1990. It would appear that certain other negotiations ensued,, The appellant stated tliat on 19/9/90 he went with the .1st- resporideht: to 1-:lr, Halo, an advoca_te 1 ivhere the 1st respond.et1t received frcim h-i_m. sl1s 100«000:10 in the presnce of Mr. Ngalo as pattrpayment of the shs 500.,000:00 and agreed· th:t"-i'1aniling .,, . of the transancti:on·rbe~:tr.airsferred ·_ from I-:lr • 1-fuambo to i':ir. J~_galo . ·' .On 20/9/90 both par'ties ;j6intly·-wrote-l1r;, ·Nhambi·a le·tter:'(exfufu:i P3) • _. • •• ••· : • , : : ; 1 ; : • < ••. · .-:. .p ·.L 1 . -:- • headed, 11 MICA.'I'ABA: HA· KG'UZIAiiA I-f:il"JI~. Nft. Sfi.41 1 fflA 11 ~ That. letter reads: "Tafacl.hali :r.:ejea ·mi.kataoa 1nii,-Ji:ri·"tuliyoiMii'ti. ·mbele yw· · mnamo rin1ezi Okt~~ba,,.)987.. Ku;f1.;1ata1 _r..a rnikataba--:hiyo/··: muuzafi; Sjjncin kariialcia a.i.ikualri.a ha.ti ya nyum yrn .... - . ,., Ni ma_ombi.7etu -kwamb.:r · h:ati tliy6 ·ilinf)tf 'nci.ugi/ Ctt.igalo, ., advocate .. " . . : .. •• f' ,!.' ...,: ..... Mr. r1iraJl1bo rep],ieg to t,hat.lettr vide ·Mis· -· 1 .. (exhibit P4) headed," ·i 1 R.E: TiTLi DRE) - IN THE HATTER OF r-1/s SFiOH WiA¥:EA LANDL®J.D• AND PTIOSl?':ffi 1fu:ssoKIJ.i ~ PUTI.GHAS.ER., 11 The substance of that lette,r is disce:inri.ble in paragraph two thereof which reads: . . ; t· . - .. Hin resnonse to the s3n,e ·f.ind. eclosed th0 said title deed.:._ and rlevant paper-s foF your r.ecessary actio~" The appellant I s construction of the two letters ( e1~hi bit . P3 and, Pl+) was that the-;;qiie.~t-i.'en e·f sale and transfer of the land to him was n. longer an issue;- ~ him the-·two ietters established that the __ lst respondent had surrendered the suitland to h:iJn for had it been!~ther- wise he would not have- consented to have Uie docuinent·s of title tra- nsferred. from the 1st re_spondent I s -~~lvo;ate to· his advocates. While· acknowledging signing tl1e·letter (exhibit P3) andpa.tronising_Hr. Ngalo 1 s offices the ls( resp.endent denied to have received any money . from the appellant f9r. any purpose in Mr. Ngal.o' s o.f.fice. f' I• ,...,;i., •·

..,.,. •">h!' : • ' . : : 4 .. . . .. -·r 9'.• As for - ·11~· 1rias concerned the sale ar-,reement (exhibit P2) was over as -- .· •' . ' the appell.:nt had failed to.remit the shs 1.100~·•00:C') balance as of . .,•' • I ·..t • • .. • •· 30/10/88 .• All he wanted was .. the appellant to take back the shs • . . 400.ooo :00 he paid on 2/9/88_. as advance payment'. ' In the ;o~·se o:f .tri~. ::t o time did the 1st respohde°il .raise the ques~~;.;rihat {he sale_ a,greement (exhibit P2) was inoperative for .--1: ''. .- . .- . .. - . p. • want of clnn J!1embers 1 consent;,. i'Pre _.ws some evidenc::: from the 2nd ·- .... , . respondent Tobias Kamakiar Blla .Kamalda (DV III) Foibe Laiser· (DH IV) :-. . ·\ . and Raphael i(ola (DW V) that t_he ,,S\lif..t,land was clan· land ani that the . ~ . •., .. . . ... 1st resnondent could not sell it wJ-thout their cfnsent. ' ·The 2nd. es .L - : • . -· - • : •• tndent and DW III are the 1st resp011dent ts children while DH IV is his wife. DH V described himself as clan, elder.-· The evidence however • •- • .- .... ~ • .·: • t • ~ l-j • • ~ • • • . • • • reveals that th0 he had tlle ri13ht . . . -·-· t" ... " suit.land· is; the -'1$t" respondcpt' s personal property antf \ . . . . . -. . ; . . . , - .... _ --=-· ·rl _ .. ,, to selrit ·without .reference· to clan members. On () . this point the 1st resp-11ndent s+,atcd that he saw no reason to inform meinbers of his family of the ·1and·· sale il1- __ its, for.rnative 5:tages. He -· ':,:·:. would have done so had it c,~~ · thro12- 6 hc '.;·: Another point was·=_taken that the d;_sposition. (exhi.bit P2) was inperative for want of consent by the Arush 1 District Council. This pnt was argued during trial,. The t1:'iaJ_ court upheld the point and dismissed the suit basing its decision on a passage in Tito Korrielio Versus Gregory E.: Mshana and Bi •. Bertha A. Hassan ( 1981 1,H.T·· 128).,, That passage 1·eads:. "• •• according to the Native J.uthority (Consolidation) 0-.cder 1959 (ma.di§ unifer section 167(1)(b) of Cap.333) transactions in la.'1d require the consent of the land authority which, according to Rule 12 of the 1959 Order and Sction·167(1)(b) of Cap.333 is Arus&a District Council~ The Council under the powers of ,section· 32(5) of Cap. 335 has dele8ated i-t;s authority . to its Land and Natural Resources Comm!'ttee •• .-. whe1e a transaction of land does not comply with -statutory provisions the sale is, ren::lerecl' inval:Ld oi in other words "inoperative • 11

. . .. 5 .. . . ....... , . . ~ -. :; ... : . \ . . .. ·Both'":tried CUhsi for "the ptiesr .Mr'. Nalo ,r the appellant and 1 ✓ u-:·- oj-ai-'I •for•:,t,he:--rspon:lht'~ :i·aied _-vry 1rieresting leal points aM':baclled thm up witli 'ektreir.el;y' pmsuasive argume;ts~ For this I am .. :~atlY;_ :ibt,ed to. thm :-- f( ivull appear to me in thi final . ~~alysis that the ··clec•ision, '·in this ap1j~·a1::-evolves around whether the land transanction entemd iht:b ·betweert' the parties was valid •. 'The lahd in dispu.t :,is l'ocated_- at 't,h~ '-'icij'rig arc.1 in Arusha' a:;d the vid;ce is ;-. :· ~ . silei1t if to. the 'tyPe of tn'e that was aper ati V8 at the date of the alleged land transactionl Howeve1, it 5,s discernible from hhe amended .... , : .. . :· . . . ... , .. ~ -:- ;-,:, . J:. . . . : : . .. . .: -·· plairit filecr' on 21/1,/9.3 that''{-,11e ··appellant applied for· and was grnnt,ed leave Uhder sectio 63 ciL th~-c•{1l&i.'iiatesi c·~~t~ Ac~, i984 t~ '{~~m~ nee the 51+it---iri. a cciut t1"i:,,:'th a ·Primty C-~~L ___ :P-ah 4 of , •.: .: t. •.' \ "!..., . • l i ;_... .. . • . . .• .. j .:• "/+. On the 21st day of Au31st 1992 1 the High Court of Tanzania t .Arusha. vide 1--iisc .. Civil Application No. 179/92, granted 1eave to the plantiff to commence these procee- dings il the court. of ·Lhe :Qesi.Jent Hagistrate t Arusha." ,. · ... ~ :. In High Court MisceiJ aneous Civil application No. 179/92 the , .. -. . application was made under tbe p;,·ovisions of section 6.J of the Magi- .. ·t .· .-·. ··: , .. ·· ~~ .. •:i .. :\j .!-;:tr'.··. :=: 1 .-I :: --,·;.,:•:i) strates 1 Courts Act, -19.8/-1- for leave to commence J.,roceedings in respect · ;-.. . . . ... . =·.::. : . .:~ •. H:;r · ·!; .. : ··r0·. 1 : , .. ,j:.c.:::i : · ') of land held under _·_9utomary ltli'i · :.:.;, Uie court of resident magistrate. Leave tJas duly granted. That application is sufficient evidence that the Ji.and in issue was,· at·the t cf the' alleged disposition, held under a deemed right of occupancy. As such the alleged disposition could only be operative if and ,vhen the requisite censent in t!3rms . . . , of the rule as enunciated in ICo;.·nelio • s case (1981 TLR 128)was pre- viously sought and obtained. As the said consent was not obtained it 'follows that the :alleged cJ.is:Josition ~f the suit "land· ( exhibit

• . . ... , . ·~ P2) from the 1st respondent to the appellant was IITOid ab initil)~ •, ·, ·,

6 . : . .. . .. . ·:·-·· The sale agr-eer:ient (exhibit f'.2) and'the appellant's testimony .. . · .. .,,,, .. reveal thc.t t.'f1e · ~ppeLLant. paid .the 1st· resporrlent sh.., .. 1.l'J0.000:00 as consideraticinfor execution of the .sali:iragt'eenierrt. The 1st respondent can not be" 'heard tc say as.he c:.oes that he:-Teceived only shs. 400,.Gt:»:OO ·. . ~~ , .. . , ... for this, the balance ·being. in_ respect: o-f··,a previous agreemet. Clause 1 of the agreement ( exl:J.i bit P2) stipu:J_ate·s · clearly that. the agceeme , .. was to be exe·cuted::~Dly on p3.Yment_ ·of J,.hat sum and there is nothing to make this court believe othen1ise. now that the a~~~ment was exe- cuted. ··:-··. ,, ;·· . In the l:(;ht. of what I have_ Jour-;19: ~J1e appal is diissed·· ;~ -- ... the order for'. refund of the purch-3,se. pi'i<re .is afi-irmed.' . No order is · .. ·, . made as to costs··· in tlu. court and tl1e tr,ial ··comt' s Oi"'dr for costs ; .-, f'..' 'i ·.: .. ~ is quashed as the· 1st respondent appear to have misled the. /l,::,Pellant into entering into an invalid contract. .. , . :G-,·/>_;. -:'\°' .. ,. ~ ,. . !. _;- .. ,. : Sg,tlG ( W G N. B. Kapaya) : ' Pill-i- · EtT .J 3/5/99 . .., .. Del.xered :in···cl'lurt this- 3rd q.ay .of_Ma,y 1999 in. the presence of ~ ,. . ./ ~ Mr O Ngalo f~~~anL Er. 1-! gala holding b-.cief for ,t\r-L03nre. AT iktU:.J·l.A 3/5/99, . . • • Sgd. (w .. H" B. Kapaya) PRH EIT .. J 3/5/99 _I hereby ce:~tify this to be a true copy of the original, DisrRICT REDISTrtlill Ai.1USHA ,,:. ..... - . .=. '. ~ ·.'