Anyosiyse Bwete vs Yesaya Mwamtobe (Pc Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1995) [1998] TZHC 2516 (8 May 1998)
Judgment
...J
,,.,--;--/. ,,.J
..,. ___ 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA
1
(PC) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 22 OF 1995
(From the cl.ecision ,;~ ::t.:- District Court of
Before: .SM. Rumanyika -- R&sicient Nagistrc,te)
ANYOSISYE iv'.BWETE oc,.-..o:,ccot"ocoo<,oo
YESAYA MWAM'IDBE o c c, o o c o o o o ·o <o o o o a o RES!'ONDENT
MOSHI J.
The dispute'.,between the parties centred on a shamba which the appellant
successfully elaimed from the respondent in a sut before the primary court of
Ilongo. That detision was reversed hy the district court of Mbeya on an appeal
to it lJy the re1?l'f?ldent. The appeL in··· :el-:: .::..gg:bieved, hence this appeal and r~ by
the respeniient himeelf.
The \
was arguefl oefore me by his learned a.· ·'.)c.3.te, Kr. Mwangolter)al faets established in ev::.d,:;r.·c before the t!'ial court were
' '
'
these., In ◄ 966 the respondent inherited sc-ime .land from his granimthe:ri 1'
1'74 Ta~•ha Simwibe SU3 approachetl the respondent w.ith her fathej for
l::i.nd. The respondent gave· her a portion o: ·:is lane \•;hich became the land in \
d::.spute. . S1J3 d hie father oG-cur-i-•c. •:-,En; -:..:--, C,l.nd built a wattl
house on it ♦ The offer was ab;oL.-:- ~ .d t '':- .laud became the pl"Operty of SU3.
The reM~pdent, he akroitted, cec::..:-::;•d •--, o;,.r:. it. In· 1975 SU3 got married and
left the lano leaving her fa thcr on :i +.. In 1976 te appellant approa.c.hed the ·,
1 ;
father t,f $U3 for lal\d. He had just arrived. f Zarnro.a .anfi he s aftel fa?ming
land. After h ha;. eol'~lted su3. the father of SU3 gav-e. thappellaxt th.e lani.
i..'1. tiispute- The off et• again, would appear to have been a'b,s(lJ.ute, for the
'.:i.: :pe.llal\t J,i).ae~ f.lui't trees ::-:1 it anc. built o.n it a permanent house of
burnt earthenobricke, The appellant's witnesses, Anyandwile isyala s-12
anci, Mbangalo Ma. te SM3, .&s well as the respondent
I
s witnessoo, Asansye
i'!waneakamilo · SU a4 SU3, saw th.e appellant building the hoose .and pl;mting
- 2 -
,a:he fruit trees. I!i!. 19'77 the appellant left for Chunya leaving the land under
the c.:1r2 of SM3. Accfrding to S:-·'.3 the respondent ½egan to raise claims of
owners\ip 'YJ·Jr the land in 1988, but the respondent told the trial court a
different story- that it was in 1992 when the appellant sent relatives to the
land to har\test fruits ,that he placed his first claims over the land.
The primary court found in .favour of the appellant on account of the long·
and undisturbed f)eriod of about fi:
t2r:n years the appellant had occupied the J.and. 1 Jith respect, I would uphold ttat find.ingo The period of limitation for the recavery of land is twelv·e years--,. SEE Law of Limitation .'\ct No. 10 of 1971, Fir$t Scheduie, Part 22. That period passed before the respondent made any effort to recover the land from the appellantThe res-pendent, who was crucial here, fold the trial court that it was in 1992 that he registered his first claim$ over the land. Ee v:as t.hrour:;hout in. the village and had seen the appellant occupying and devel0ping the land" B~.sides, there is a line of authorities to. show that this court will not readily interfere in order to give remedy where the party seeking such remedy sat on his rights and did not act.wih reastnable promptitde- SEE, for instance~ ?ilaje Vo Fembera (1972) HCD 3 •nd Sha bani Nas*o vj Raja bu Sim( 1967) HCD 233. It is in the public . . interest that a person wJ has long been in undisputed posession should be able to deal wth the land as Lner. bstly, th·::r0 ,·ms one crucial matter which had e.5caped the attention of the district court. The laud in dispute was no longer the prope:,ty of· the respondent. !fo had relinguished his right of ownership over it when I he unTditi•nally gave it to SU3 :i.n 1994. So the land ceased tc be a matter for the respondent o It was a misconception on the facts establish1..:ii in evidence for the di.-1:ri•t court to hai.re declared the respondent it~ owner. I accordingly al• the ap]'eal, quash the district court's judgment, and hereby testore the primacyour'~ decision which declared the appellant the lawful 9wner •f the. la.9(l in aj.s.p:rt...,. '.!:';.1'?. •.t.Ppellant to have hi~ costs here and AT MBEYA. 3.P. MOSHI JUOOE. '·· .. .....