Venance Nyaringa Kazuri vs Eldad Mwasigwa Sospeter (DC Civil Appeal No. 26 of 1996) [1999] TZHC 396 (5 March 1999)

.• MOSHI, J, · ;

:, ;ti/ /Y ~ ~ '- IN THE HIGH COUm' OF TANZANIA AT MBEYA DC CIVIL APPEAL NO •. 26 OF 1996 (From Mpanda. District Court Civil: Case No •. 6/95 . . ~ .. Be:fo~: · T.A.R~ Nassary - Resident Magi$trf,lte) .. ?' •. -, : VENANCE NYARINGA KAZURI ••••••••• APPELLANT . Versus ELDAD MW.ASINGWA SOSPER •••••••• m,pPONDENT ----------- ·,, _·. :- JUDGMF.N_l1 The appellant VENCE NYARINGA KAZURI sought a d-eclarator., order before the district court of Mpanda that he was the rightful occupier<6i Plot No._ 25 ' .. . i:..-,-t ·?; :· Block 11 A" situate at Mpanda Urban afea. . ~ : . . . He also :claime'd from the respondent ELDAD MWASINGWA SOSPErER ,shs.1,-000,000/= general damages arid shs •. 200,000/= ' . . " special damages. He lost the suit, hence this appeal. At the trial the appellant was advoca:ted for by Mr. Materu, learn. advocate, and the responQ.ent by Mr. Kayaga, learned advocate. In this appeal. ' .. /1 Mr~ Materu assisted by Mr. Mbise, learned advocate, represen'ted th\f appellant, and Mr. Mushokorwa, learned advocate, the respondent,. he case for.the appellant was that he as- allocated that plot by the District Land Allocation Committee, hereinafter ·ca.lied the,Land Cominittee, in · ' ' - ; .' 1992 tough a letter of offer dated 31.8.92. ' ... ,. It ·was a residential area and the letter of Off er: required him to build a house on it ithin on,e year. In ' '· ., I 1992/93 he..,planted banana plants on it. . A certificate of occupancy tExt. P1) ' ' registered on 7.5.1996 was issued in -his name. It ·had been .prpared in 1992. , 11 .• , On _?3.6.95 he ·reeei'7ed· a l.tter (Ext, P2) from the lp.11d Office instructing him to dvelop the land before 22.8.9,2, else h'is. ·rights onr it wou1a be· revoked. ~ . . .•, .. The letter also requi':red him to submit the plan of the house he intended to .G. . ;-·. . I build on the_ plot befor.15.7.. On 21.8.95 he,_ wrote a letter:asking fbr two months extension of time :to·dv.elop the .land_.· -0n··''lJ)j.9·5 the land committee :r .. •,:-:: .... r· -

., . .,,. :.:: ~ I- . r ":' : , -, ,;.ft.' G : -- '!. 1 '« :· d .. : . •. ~ ••. . . : .. (', i ., sat .and -ed. t.b.e letter of' off·er;,.-.- A.ni?s}in flllil~~f by him, Emmanuel Milambo . .. . . . ./ .. : i J':':'-::; l~ t :.··. . ·i· . . . . (PW3) starled on~- f<?i◊nr:::3•.10;95•~j-but··the i.furk_ was· destroyed allegedly

'-'-,..' •· : -~/-,: --7,/;:-' ·. -, .::: .. · T :, ., .. : ,:y: '\ ;;~•,: :· t,l .. i,. . by the retj)ondent she>rtly; :thereafter.,, .P.W3 .said he started the work on J .. 10.95. ':-·. J.· .· .···.:· ,-,-.~ -~- ~--;. ! . . -· T:'' ,.::,.,, .. '.i..{(,: ;t :'ji:·>.··:·(.:· t•'.;--:1 ... ,:. which was destroyed by unkfiomi f,itrlfo~·-;;~ 5.10 .. 95, ... '. ,. 3 . .-~ .. ;•·r-.:·/ :. ·... ,:!·,·.;.· --.-· .. , . . -~ .. ' .. , . . ·... ~ ~- '!'he case for the r:espundent was that he appliE?d £:or ~ plot and the land

• , . ;- 011 2 .. :1_995 i,'i' . . .• , ... Committee offed llim te---~~?-'in; dispu--i-de a letter (t. D1) of 3. 10.95. He claimed there was not any development on the plot. There was neither a . -:: : ". I .: ·: ... : :-; ·. - • .,_ foundation nor banana plants on it •. · ;T_hE?- :iand. officer who took him to the plot, ... ~ .. - ~ .-r··,. . •• "" .. -· • .. ,:'..--, -- Protas Mponwa (DW3) said he did not see any Iorm -of development on the land. On 7 ~ 10. 95 he engaged a mason' Paschal -:Kaombw~' ( DW2 ):;- ho sarted on the . . . . . . ....... ., . . . . .. . . . . . , ·:;-.-1;:: ·•1 "t·- . :'.-;· foundation. IM2 said the plot ,was completely empty. He. Said the ~~ nitber ·'.! ; a foun<¥1tin nol' st.ones. nor. bricks. nor· banan"a" plant;. ~~ri_it~ On 9.10.95 ~ o-ff'er (·-r -::- -<. of-; ight of occupancy (Ext P2) was issued··~~hiEfname. ·'· . . . That se _ day- .±,:q~ .. . .. •f •• •· • ..:..:o• • • • • .;•. ' ~; ., appellant r·•gistered a eompL:1.int at·. the 'p9lice. 'st;tio.n that he had encroached .. . ' . ·. '\ · .. ;: : ... ,. on his plot. Copl AhmedJrW~i),, wh<:t,;,nf~~~-• p.e- plot sAw ·so'me -pieces of bricks he thought had been part of a fodatiol'}..· _ Te appellant himself pr~:ti3-rred four ·grounds of appeal which were; . ~-· . ..,. '

1. That the learned :,trial magis"trale grossly misdirected himself in law and in fact in finding that. there. wajs-. a

revocation of the appellant's title to the su,:iJ7land ' .; . . '·-., --- where~ the .ai--d revocation - null-cind ·void· it having·.'; ·been done by he District_ Land- Allocation Comin:i.ttee • . • . . ' .-· •• -1· instead of the President • . · · 2. That the ieed trial magistrate_ erred_ in- law -and in fact· in finding ·that the allocation of the suit-land to f , ,·· O :t 4 ·• the respon<ient was val-id whereas in fact and 1n"'f;w the titl~ , ., '" to the :;and was st_ill _ ve~-ting to·. the appellant-. ·' · ... 4 ........... • ., ___ ... · · 3~ That. the learned trial magis:trat~ · e~~ in ·iaw ·. antl' in - . - . . ·.-.rr., .. ,,; ' . . ... . . ,:, ,. -.-. · . : fact in declaring the respondnt as t4e i:-gh.ftll 1 registered owner of the suit-iand~' . ...- :•.: ~ .- ' ; . ti' ......... ~ ....... - ..... .•. :' '• ,- •· : •,:· Th,at ·the learned- t'rial ·magistrate erred· ·in law and in fact in•·find_that there wai{no ·"imprvemet done by , , 1 ·•••.·,,I.I·,:,. l --t! '. • , •••••••• / 3

'c: 1 -_;:·)~~ , '., p . : \ .. . :'"4W•; (:. •.;·:,?•_t:~~~~ . "I' ·•: _,,. ,,, .vr . .:.:\ . ;. ' the a:ppellant over the su;i.t-land and also by denyig ,. •' the~ ~~~ -thereof ,and. 'other -damag.es . . ... , ' ' ' as prayed. Mr • .Ma.t-eru ..submitted, and Mr. Mbise agreed with him, that the land t-N did not ha-ve- r to- revoke the e&rti.ficate of ,occupancy (,Ext. P1 ): · a&.'.thBt- pewer -~~- is. only for the President to exercis'e. With respect, I find that.- .mi6.guid.eQ. j,n the c:Lrou.mstanees of this case., Under section 10( 1) of the Land~, -Ca.p.11.3. the icant has power to revoke any grant of right ot occupancy for good eause, and each of the aix.-condit.iollS list ther ► ':,:· under is. w}w.t. .:i.tut.es ,good. <,ause. .And under cti<m 1()(?) :of Cap.1:1.3, the . . .. . . . . . ., •,'· •-' . · . . .. P!le9d.eti has. pcwer to revoke a right of occucy if, i:n. hi& opinion, it is in the public int-ert so to do. In this case• however,. it was not the l,"ight of occupancy (Ext. 1?1) that the land committee rvoked. ,It was it.s letter of offer dat-ed 31st AuSM5t_ 192~ that it revoked•. At the time of revocation the right of occupancy as'yet to beeome valid on account of that it had: not been registered. . It was :iegist'ere·a" ' ( , -- - ¥ on 7.5.9§ •.. A right· of occupancy is a docUI!'lent of which regjstration is compulsory • I . •: • " in terms of section 8( 1 )(a) of the Registration of Documents Ordinance, Cap. -117. · • • 1. I ' r Under-.se_etion 9 o Cap. 117 an. unregistered tj.ocument affecting land whose regietrtion is compulsory is invalid. It reads: :•9. No document. of which the registration is compulsory sb.:tli be' ·,e:ffetual to pas any land or any interest therein or render such land liable ·as security for the payment of • 9ey, or be received as evidence of any .dealing affecting such land unless, and until, it has been registered. 11 · ►~ • - . • • - •. . - ' .. •. - . It was uispted, and I agree, that a. land allocation committ_ee · would have •· · powe to revoke a letter of offer issued by it for good cause. Such ood''c:'aus·e would inclde a breach of any term or condition contained or implied in the letter o~ offer. I would, with respect, agree with both the trial court and Mr •. Mushok- , . - -~ ------ that the appellant failed for unbearably long period of time to develop the plot .. . ---.- . .. in dispute despite a remindr ~d notice to revoke., he allegation· of bana ••••.••••• / 4 •

• 4 - plants. and a foundation allegedl.:ic -destroyed by the respondent ould not be (PW3) said he did not see any on the plot. And more, neither the respondent's mason (DW2) nor ·the land officer (DW3) _saw any ,there. _.In any case, -the plot was -d9Iltw . .and no-t - :f wh.ich could have_ beep diyel,oped by -p.1.anting - "i, "·., plants: 'Th~ .. type: :c;:t ent -eDVia&g.-ed .w.mad ha'lf'e been .the erection -of - · resideiitial ooilding on the plot-. On the allegation of a· foundati,an, i"t "WaS .an imibilicy that ·thet'e ~ • f I - • ••• . . , ... have l;>e.en .a foundation.: -oa-pal,.l.e, .a! being .destroyed by the respondent on account '::·.: .. o£ the V'e'I'J!: srort pimit.y '1.l_l __ t'i.me frQ.tl'.I th-e alleg-ed-tiestructiori to the time work . . : '! ., ... , •... •,. - ':..·..;.. .... ,;;. on it had began. It was, accor,.ding to .PW3, hardcy one tlay and hali 1 .and it eoul.d If ... • • • t. - thus not reasonably have been expected that PW3 had done any more work on it than possibly clearing it. ,PW3 himself was not -ertaj,n on hich of the two plots of ..._ • l. •:it . • '; . !. •- • - . . . '. the appellant. at. that are he had strted work on the foundat-ion. 'He did not. ••. • • •• ;, -:-- _ • '.:1; ; _r · ·, · .. _. · . . • . even know- who .had des'troyed it. He said in cr ... examination at page 4 or-·th.e , . : .... . .. · . ' . '•, typed proceedings: lfThat foundation was built on the plot of the appellant. I don't know on which plot that foundation was puilt •. That foundation waa- . • .:! .. - . ' . . . . . ·. - ' . . . . : . -:~ ! : . ' ~ . .. desti-oyed by unknown person. I know the,P,t§itiff has anothel:' plot at that area. 0 And'neither DW2 nor DW3 had seen any foundation or remains of.a foundation on the plot. On the evidence, and in the cireutnstaneesf I am satisfied, as was•the trial courtf that the preponderance o! probability was in favour of the respondent. I would 1 in consequence,· uphold the trial court's findings that the r_e&!)Onent is the rightful owner and occupier of Plot_ No. 2.5. Block 0 A~ 1 at Mpanda · Urban area, ahd that the appellant' is not entitled to any comtion, atl.d h.er.?bY. clismiss this appeal with costs. AT MBEYA .. 5 March 1999. For Appellant: Mr. Mbise advocate. For Respondent: . _Absent • .,.... - B.P. MO.SHI JUDGE.