Ramadhani Suta vs Gwerino Kibasa (PC Civil Appeal No. 44 of 1988) [1991] TZHC 2748 (25 September 1991)

; \ .lN THE ·HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA .. :, . iT I·:33YA :----- ,.-~- (PC) CI VI..1-...:.::}P.],i, L ,NO. 44 O~-~~ ( From the de-0isi on· of the District Court· of Huindi at· r.12finga in Civil .Appeal No. 2· of 1984-) RAl{AI)I-fAHf SUT'A .................. •'• APPELLANT ·VERSUS . . . G°IVERINO KI BASA ••••••••• · •.•• :,;- ~ ••• • RESPONDENT, --------~ . ..,., ' -~ ·•"l' .-;'i <· JU.DGE1ENT MWAIKASJJ 4 J, • • I O • ; ~ Iri th:e. :i?::rimary Court . of llrigololo, "'!'iJl;1_im: rflufindi District, . • ' .. • ·i1.' • the a:ppellant, one RAMAD!iANI 3TJTTA; sued te re·spondent orie-' · ". ~ . • ..... ,i-' C • ' GWERINO KIBASA, fo:r the recc·iery. of a pie·d'e -of land about three ·acres in Si 278, that 'wi?S- S~id ·to have be_en wrongfully cup;;d· -by the respondnt.;·' :-;a~ los-t· both· p~fore the. tri_a_l :·,, ··:- ... :· ... court and on his appeal to ch9 lower appellite ootirt. Hence·· ,. this ppeal" . ;,j ' . ,. ·• At the hearing of t.'.)is appea-1. th:3 -ppellant was reppnte'd by Mr. Bateyunga.,. learnac. advoc~.te and the respondent a'ppeared '.·; in person, T1e .judgement of ;.11e lovcr appellate court has been challenged on the fo.llc.-dn& grounds: ,., (a) That the lec:,rn-3d· Rosidnt Magistrate erred· in fact an.d _law when ho·: held tht the appellant had acquie- sced to tho allo.qation of the-land to the rospondont when there is evidence t;hat the pr_otest by tho appellant began fr.om the time· no .rofl.!SCd comp<?nsati'Jn from.tho respondent, and throughout .the time the rospondon~ continued 'in ·accupc;tion· of the land; (b) That tho learned Resident· Magistrate erred in fact and in law when ho . he id that· tho lnnd in di spu tc was in a bush like abandon form when.there is · clear eVidono that. tl?,ere wore unexhaust0d improvemcn ts includi~g ponnarrnn t" crops growing thereon that belonged to the a_ppellant;

= 2 :e ( c) That the learned Resident I,Iagistrate erred in law whieh he held thc:t · -the allocation committee was eompatet in ·allocatiB the disputed piece of. land to. the respondent by alleging that· the land was :public land· without calln~ for scrutiny of 9ny rea.-ei!>hs · empowering the· same to do so. (d) That the: 'learned }1esident r1a~istrate in invoking ·.the decis.ion in the cas·e of NYAq0D0R3. GIHONGE Vs, CHAGHA ·o'As,AYA (196G). HOD n. 409,' in the oircumstanees • of this ~ase • '. · ( e) That the. _fin.J:'lg of the.· lower appe l1nte oourt was against ·the evidence -and weight of the evidence., As to the. fae_t$ if. he::, case, these as a)pea;- from the Jtocord of t,he trial cou,rt, ·a:e .straight forward. .It is co;:r: 0 or. gro-und. that the .app.ellant- 1£ one of the. old residents of the vi lle.ge where the land 1n d1.spute 3.s si tate •. ,.It is al.so . ,· ''. ',,, .. ' common grountl -;ha~ priol' tc the· villagiza;i·on campaign the lend ' . ' . . : ': '· . in dispute was unde the· 01;cupation and U$e of the appellant. While in :QCBUpation'· .ot: su:c.1· land :the appellant developed 'it . . . . '.. . ... . and had it planted ·.wt t1r: JJerr,1c.11ent: t:rops such ·s.s bamboos ·for · bamboo Vtine,, pine trees, uava tres bana plantations and mango tro !3- s •.. Sometime in 1974, followins viilagia:to11. e,xecise the appellan~ was forotrcl · to· iX6va:' out of .sh_'lan¢J.: .. apd vient ,to . ,. :. ' . . ·· another 1:,lee nearby ju3t' about ¼ ·mile awy. Nevertheless·, such dis1;uted pieoe of land was still regarded by the village gover.t1L11cnt as the property. of the appellant.. It·::vJas fir~t · . . . ~ ... left ti,:nr!:the ·care· of one .. .I;i.A~~• Sometime in 1976, pert of such: disputed pio 0(3 of la'ld WE\S given to a g:rO\lP of pe oplG who th(;l'l used it the trial c~~t;'· Aiso -'o bo. challenged was the findip.g 'bY. the. lowGr a1jpellnte court that. tho villc:.:;e leadQrehi was competent.to allocat the 1 disputod picco of f, • • ' •. • ·• land'~ . beusc soon ,after moving away, tho· a1JpelJ_ant• s land ·became. tinder. the contro.l ··Qf .. the village council, the trial ' I • , , court. It was .. the~ the.;Submission by Mr. Br:tyungs that the refli?l by the appellant 'to accept the cfornpcnsation offered by the'· ro,spondont was an exprossi•on· that. ho W8S not willin,"' to part with the land 'i~ di sputG, hence : the dove l·opmcr. ".: of

. . ' 1· J .... • J 1• :·' •. ·: the SjilO till it reached a1Jpcll8nt who had testified to b.Dve refusd to accept such alegod·Compcnation for is unoxhausted impr.ovemens. In fait euch finding. ,by the lov,c:r;- appellate had. been .compcnsatod is not 0ofu0 out by :ilhc evi<:).oncc b:lf ore view of tho .lowot 9 ppellate e·ou.rt tht tc .. appcll:2,nt had •acquioscod in tl10 occupation. et. th dsputcd 1-an•d _.by the rcs)ondont on the . ground tht th. app~ llt, y;;s nllcgd to have lrc·c.dy re cei votl '\ ' . . •. . compensation for such· lnd, r..'l.r 6 uing .. that -suchJ.'act had boon denioC:. by tho which coniotip1. yvas later se.·'t 2,sido on 1/6/83 on appeal ta 'the Dfstriot Court, where .i,t W2,S odvisod th8t the '.'GOJ:lflict had to :•t5e rceolvod by wriy of' a ci Vi'l suit, hence. the suit ·.by tho appe·llnrit." · • ·,' i .. : . .p11on sue~.:f'a,st~,.:.n .ra;uir1g tho. appoa1-:qr. ;eatoyung2, ounscl for ._:tho• ap!X)lant: Qh2llcngcd .thi · !1-i-pi. crnmponsatcd for th scu.110 wa.s ~~Jeo'bod, '..At.0:i1c time h h,.od.to-o:r;i.tor tho disputed p,fG.ce 0£· land by forco for which: ho had to be. ·. P.,rosco;t9d· ,and •vieted. of t:h-. offonoo .-Qf :criminal· trospa13s v.pon oompaint by, tho:. rcHJpondon1s, --n rf.tgololo .l?r-imary Court Cr. yap9 ~~--, .. ..4QB/8~~ Qf ·plant.1.ng· more ba~.ans. until. sometime· in 1984 whc11 the app llant QC:c:;a11 clim,ing 'Qa9}{ such J:•:c co· of l2n 0 · .. E6wov0» it was the· 2.j_Jpcllant•·• evidon~~- i11::t :when tho • ••••• •-•· • •. • • '. ,-;. • •' ' , ,,·. •. • I fl ropondcrit started oe•ull.Ying. and oul;.1:"°ting t.h,: land .in . ·,. ... ' . . . . . . - . - . . '. ; . . ' ~ ' disputo-·epm,mo ,in J._9SQ?. c month lai;Gr hq gtartod protesting it. .A11y··ttompt by th,, :.bspondcnt to,hayo ho· sl1'o~~d cultiycto SUQ.n ld. as . tho me·ttor :,ouid_ be settled by tomsc.l :...res with' '!;ho ppa 11::mt' adding that .. :·:ate:r he and th re SlJOnden:'t' cont3ct.od . ' '· .. ~ . . . the apo·1iant and oamo. o 'nn a·grocmcnt abou it.·. Thqrcaftor the rcs:Jondc.nt etatcd d:ovolping the land in 'disputci.-to this witness, it _appe~~s th~-t-. ho1 the ·res~ondont say/ t:ho.: bamboos in the piece e! land th:it had been allocated to ·him· he . . ' . ·. enquired from the members of the allocation convni ttoc .-?it . . . . . ~ . , -,,... ' . . the si to who then told h_in_i th0t the same. bolonsecl: to tho appollm1t, but they .told respondent. to and b;.nanns as .. 1,:.n.i.ono,d _above •. By then _tho _8ppcll2.nt's pioco of l2;nd the subjc0t ~::: the dis::iuto. _was amidist _tall graes. It is also inter9stinc;. to note tho ovidcn•c of tho D.r!.4, one FIDELIS LTJ"/P.I 1 ~'J.A, w.'.10, when tho r..::spondont was so ::::.llocatcd tho piocc of f;\rm l::md, was omploy0d to look after it,

Accorc':.ing_ vill~-g~- ·ie.aders. · It was then the eide_nce of both the ·D. 1 :7,2 and n.·'w.3 1 that ·when allocating-the:-j)ice of land· to· the rGspondent, the res 1 pn<lent wa1:3· warned not o. ench_roah upon i;l1e. adjaoent· land 1QelonGing to the · l;lppe·11a11t that hd b:r ' ' : . . then bamboo pl:mts,· -ther· trees-, The;l'e'.. th .. three village leaders E 1 :·1otted_ -pieee of -·lai1d tht=1t was 1;1ccept.abJe to the respondd11t. It was then duly alloeatecl· to- -the. respondent. Close. to such plot allooatea to the res,ond.ent Orl;· the '.Vster11 side w,.:s that of the ap:pelJ.;i,nt. That ·.was duly noted by the three 2.llooatio.n cornmi ttee, the D. ·•.v .• 2,. one 1mssA . s/o KIDUGO, tltf?n a member of the V'illge __ l.ancl allocation committee and the D."H.3, one ALAN S/0 UALEMA, then the villa·ge ehairmai for T.igoolo. village• Upn presen~i.~g his equest th:e . res 1 )bndent was ·.takeii· to a }')lace down a. valley. along fd.1.i1.die, river· riear TA'3ARA . railway line•· . fer a:bout two years a:s ·an trjama:}: fann, but they. ,t,oo 4Qed_.it· " · It ··then came to' paas· tl12t ·sornetim '.:in 1978,: the reop11d0nt . . ' . . . got at r:.;ololo village looU.:11:; for· a -arm l:11.<;1. , He :cont.::.:·.ctod the , vi 11'}§.e ;e de~~~hJ, • i i.se ::~ re the P. 1, 2, one JACKSON s/ o Ml'UKALE;, <;>u.rrent villa5.~.tlairman, then a mem1for :'f ·tr.e ' vilag~•,13. la11:<1: ... : . . -;t' a ·-~.ri.c/ sv.1'm.i,s$1on ,!f Mr, ::Bateyunia tl1at. such.yic.w ai; erron~~~bq,case:a:trto fime did.sjWh'ipiece o.f'··: land_ fall under tho. t,oi.-o of the Mgololo v.111a·gc co;mcil -- so as. to alloeato. i-t :'vYiJl bc·oc;1usc' thG. land had uneXhaustod. '~ impr<,>VO:"'.:onts: and 'that c rcn thou3h tbo ,· app.ollant · 1ad moved . . . . . . . away, . he ha. left it- tlrl dor tho caro oi' onEY '!1}'.)i.duk_g··: Ho addod tha_t this .. court had ·of1;.en 1'L10s holcl' that tvh8rc land has ·been allooatod, t<f any pe°i•son, .. it cannot be· o:..allocatd. to another person if the original occu:ior still uses ··i_t an"\i without his -.-onsent. On .thi·; ,proposition t-1i court·.:•was ·referred t6 the- cnse~ of MASUDOKARELA·, vs~ EAmVA NY.1:if:q.vA' ( 1967YHc'n.' n. 4121 RAMADHANI vs. SqNGU (1972) ·r-w:o 1:A69. arid RUGi..-cm-,;½ JOEL (197e)- H. C.D •. n.122, He further argued that :gbing· by .,tb:e evidon'bc . of tle ji,3, . it' )Jpeai-ed' .that tho respondent; had \fr6nfully ivadpd, the appolia;_t•s ian-d by erossin'g t11-c border ·:int() tho' • ,' l- • appellants land eor-trary to cxpre.ss directivos of the .·.v:.·~.1.gjc land allooation committee the,t 1io shotild not· encroach upon. such L-::nd •.

.. = 5 = In reply the r_e SJJori9-ent argued that he had moved in to the· disptet;]. lan9- ii;__··:.7.§., while the 2.ppellant institutel?- tl1' suit in J.984• about seven .years_ ever since he was al}ocated ' ,. . ·- such land by the village- leadcrshilJ, a·dding that as. the appe- llant was the Jumbe of his locJlity he.must have known his rights, He went on· to arc;ue t-;c.t i;he appelL:m.t- havi:;:ie; left the dispμted p,Lece of land in 1974, during the vill2cization campaigt'.l, such pi.ei•e of land WelS tl1en a;I.located to one twiduka, who after failing to levelo]li t, he abandoned it and migrated:· liO another })lace. Thereafter t1e land ·wc:s ;;,.llocated · to.the Youth Organization 9f ~~e village, which, too, ab2ndoned it la.ter. Thereafte?i the land was 2,llocated to him (respondent), while it was tall bush, · He ,:;d.mi tted that when he p-r;:~~n to occupy such, land tl1.ere were L1 it about 30 bamoo·os, one guava , tree, ad.ding that the bansna·3 were lJlanted ·by.himself.· · .:i.e denied to have simply encron :.;hed· upon ·the. appellant• s lend, .. · maintaining tht it was all·atod ,to him. It. ?i'as hoevor after · such land had ,bee~· allo·catri : 1 _ to hii~ that he n.o.ted tho: l2'.,i1boos. On enquiry fom. ;the lz.:nd · aJ "'"ocati o~ coi1m1.ittee · abo~t >uch bamboos . . - . . . he was told that -it ,,yas tl'-'· practice that· every timo 1.:ioople . .... :', . . ; of such place moved to an:r p·laco, they plantod ban').boos. ·-He then contacted tho apiJd.lJv.1t about such bamboos. who then . . ' . advised him that he shoul :t continue 1.,\sing tho land as tho bamboos . . did not really mattc1~. TJ added thc:t it was bocaus,::; the land in dispute had boo~ aba::L:oned for a long time ai+d it was bush that the village· lliJ:?.d 2L: .. ocation coiJmi ttoo,,. had ·to" allocate it t·o him and found n·o no .. :_ to consult the Gppollnnt. . . ! Upon appearing from the r:-e qord of the .lower. cohrt that tho evidence of ·tho village loadorsl1ip who alloatod tho land in dispute to tho ro:;ondent, riamoly ho' n.w.2, one ::USA s/o KIDUGO, who _was then r, 1;10mbcr of the vil:lage .land 0llooatiort coni ttec. and the :J. ·1.3, no ALBAN S/O MALEMA, thon t.'. 8 .. village chairma.n: for :,'7. 0 ololo. vi.ilage-, :was radically c::t -varianeo with that of ho rcs:Jondct· and that .of· tho respondontt's farm keeper the D.'N.4, 0119 'FIDELIS ?lo LtJV!A:TGA, as to t1c o:;-J;cnt and boundary _of the , lo,nd so a-·1iocatcd to the re s:;::ior:d.oi1.t :i I found it imperati•ro, · in the interest of justice t.:1::t 2, S¼§9.htf vtfs 1 tD5tn'briag5, strat?, _ Eafinga should be comn:i).ssion of the Dijtrict Mngi'strato, T1afinga should bo appointed to visit tho· di-sputed piece .of land and draw up

.. . ' . , a sketch plan shbing the ·boundori-s of the land sr:.id to hii1e actually been a).loctcd to the respondent as t'.s-tificd upon by tho both the D. \Y. 2 c.rid J. -,. 3 ~ ·Tho same ·was.- ;;;de.rod to ·be done in tho prcsonco. of b_oth ·pnrtios 11d udff t,.,,o ·..,i tnossos nna. have it signed by oll those/ present· ... tlfa.t '.is; 'tho two '. . ' .. . wi:ir:tcssos tho tw(). pr-irtios an: tho· magistrnte; ·.,who· hc!tL then to ·certify i t-to. this cpμrt, f-1r · fine.l dottrmihation of tho •, !'..,';.. . • That was' complied with. ·According tp the r.q cord of. VI' s_uch commission datd 3l/1U9o,···. it afil:l:'lrs that. who to · commis'sion · vii tod ·tho dispute'a. pio·ctf-' 9f a:n,d · en OOY.:3..Q · ·: ._ .. . . . all tho parties were· present, Howcve.r, of tho tiwo wij;n"os!30s. rGquired to attend and how-tho boundaries, only tho :J .• ).3 attondo, thc;i··ot_er one, ha•·ing··elready.:·died. It is t}10n on record that the. boundcrir;S -worq identified and sho·.-.i:,:.. PY t' tho D. W3 and ·th· s2.mc was lgrcod upol'-.1,· by tho rcs_pondont, afor whch 11 the parties nd -~ho D. ?! .-3, s'ignod tbp .sketch plan ~rown by tho loa_rnod Dist·( L ct J.nistr':41;0. and co:rtifiocJ. .. _o, ~~11,is court. It'· is shown to mo:- sure ![._.aa,,c .. c ... s in :-tho' south, _ • • '. • ~. • _t. . • • • • b,35 paeas in ;tho Enst, J56 ,Pc·in the North c:m.cl );.9). paces:: in tho Wost. Tho on'ly''$J.ort coming of tl'l;is sko.tcl'. plnn is ... that unlike I that drcwn \ :· tho trial;; court it docs not. show tho position of tho .. two :."ivcrs on tho East and Wost; tho position . . of l([ponzi's s,hrn:nb1:.;, i:;11r; rospondor,i.t's veter ch3111101, :and. the po·ition of _TAZARA rc.iJ-.my lin·,._-to .tho N·orth. Bo 1 tht=d; ·,,s it ' .. ,, ·- ' .. may f it would a;epo .r ;: . '0;11 sμ co{!1i11i ssi on:•s re cord thnt the·, pio co of land so JJlD.rkc_d :-of: :Jy the boundaries shovm by· the D/V.3 is outside ·tho pioc= of land iaim.cd by tho ·appellant that is tho sub jo at of this ,ro:p.0;31 ~ . . . .. Now in the lit)it · of tho evidence ns ndducod boforo. tho trial court by both the P.'vl- P.w·.2 D.W.2 ,and D<:V.3.;-,-qouplad with the finigs"·o:r 0 thiS cot•s ·-commissi:on··aif certified to. this court it ifs ab-:.i1dant;l.y lnr ,:thot tho· piece: of,.· if,.nd olcimcd by the appaJ.ant and .the subject of _this appo.l was, prior· to the allocr.'tion of a''pioco o· form l;:md',t.o tho respondent· around the z1r_o·a 1 tho property of the :·:;Jpoll<;U1t. It was so recognized by tho 1'1gololo-vilLgq loe.d,.ors~1i1J, 9.s tostifi_od upon by 'Joth tho :o.:v.2 ·and D.W.3, who '.'lllocatod

' . 7 = .. the piece of farm land .to·: the· respori,.ent. It is also c·lear that the respondent vm.s not allocated the piece of land the subject of this suit. It is true thnt at the time the piece of farm land was allocatetl·to the respondent had-long moyed from the disputed piece of land· as from_ sometime in 1974, following l'illagization campaign ton Jlace·about ¼ mile from such disputed lJiece · of lc::nd. However, such· dcisputed piece of land was left with several 1:,U'iexhausted improveiI'lents which inoluded about 32 bamboo· stoms, three guaya treas, . . some mango trees,some bananas and about 10 cypres13:eJ:!• Yet there were other follow villagers still resident 2.round of whom was · tho D • .-:V. 2 and D. "1 o 3. It is also .to be ·bor;.1 -in mind that the aiJpollantts nevi residential area -.va s0 ·)r.oxiinatc to tho former one - tho dispucod pocc of land .- th2,t tho more fact that' - in !:9.78 i - was; found t6 be f-ull of grass is no evidence' that ho had abanr med it.. That . - , seems to. have bdcn tho undorst2nding ·,f tho .vi.llagc leadorshi1.J 3s :.well, as demonstrated by h ovir:::·.co o.-f both tho D,'V,2 2.nd P.!:7 •. . . ' Tho finding by tho l•J vor appellate court that tho. appellant had acquiesced ir tho. aliocation of the disputed land to the respondent by· tho. v .llagc · land allocation c.ommi ttoo docs not appear to in corisonan< a with ·tho· evidoncc··· a:d1cod before tho trial court. For in · .• 10 first piace the vc'-i:y vi.llago . .:.,. '' officia.ls who were said tJ have :allocrli;;od the disptcd Jiccc ·- . of lanq. to tho ros·pondo:r..-;, namely tho n.·v.-2 and :P.:V.3 e.onicd . - . . ' bcf.orc tho trial cou:i;-t. D have over so ·allocated sucli. land to tho respondent, maintairing that tho ·respondent was 2ct:.:ally wrned not to onbroac:.i ·-flC>n the appellant's land, tho' one in . . . ~ . . . , . dispu,te, that was adjs;cont to his.· ·T::- ... 6re co-μld have been no other authentic viclor:t!O thn. that." . Sucl1 ovidonco was not categoric.ally robuttocl by any· ;th·o 3:"0liablo independent. evidence other t!lan .ti. rcspo1dontV S own claim •. ::'U1t1cr, ,it is evident that· from 1hi:;;. record ·oi tho t·rial court ·c:iat the ' . . . I ,. i • • dispute over th lan~ tho subject of ··tho app~al. must. llRvo started sometime in 1_980 as cl.~imod by tho appell:.;1t, ·. and· not in 1984, as allogocl. by tho respondent. For.·.it vms sometime . . . in 1982 that tho sp-,:-,.Jl.lo.nt sought to enforce his cl .. im over : . ' . tho disputed land b:r forco, by making f orciblo entry over it. ,:·.

:::: 8 :::: That then led to the criminal charge insti tutod :..-.gs:inst him for criminal trQsposs · thnt yc.:ir, vhich ·was concluded on l/.6/.8J., resulting in tho. flp; 1 elJ._ant's conyiction in T-rigoloo Primar! Court- .. cr. c. 'IToi40BL8g,. which was l .. tor rcvo.rs0d by the ... ·District 00--b, 'on c.:;:!ol by 'tlo ap1:iollnnt. It is- 1 'th:·,n the District Court·'vVhich advised tho :parties to resolve: tho conflict by way of. a cfvil :su.i·t'. Thnt thc'n -,-r:::s subsequently pursued by tho appellant by th0 institution o:f this saj. t ·tho' subject of this appeal. · In _:'tho cirCLT[\Starrcc,s-, the. lowo·r t:p1:icYllato court clearly .erred, .as its ::indin 6 ·hat t.hc apcl.lmrt had acquiesced in tho aliocatio:h of ·t;ho disputed land to the respondent, does not -ap-poar to have boon supported by tho ovidonco bof o:re tho triEll cc1J.rt ~. Even if the cvidcnec c n record wa.s to ·be found to support .• .. ; tho view that tho 12.nci. in r 1 ,. Jputc had been ,llocatod t6 tho ro·spondont in view of tho· ';Jct th:1t there W8S evidence to establish that when the ..a;t.-::11::mt.had moved to .. anothcr :Jlot ~ . . .. . . . , . ... l\bout ¼ a· mile awc1y 1 for _ho firs·t v.ro years ho ho.d gimsclf 2.llowcd one M:pidukA to us: it 2nd hold it in t:r:-q13t for him, :_ and -~~bscquontly he 0:;niJt himself let. :it to pc usod;,.a Youth . .. '' organization, which usocl it for anot:1or two years, after which the respondent .c;l.aims t:i -have boon alloca_tcd the . ;sct111c, this court -wol..ld have boon p1 .::parnd to agree with tho loamed counsel for ·tho appo llant th£>.t ,. L:.is wns not a j_Jropcr. caso· ;k,1hcrc he decision of tho case of 'YAGOBR:i: ·GINOi:GE Vs. CHAG.HA.GASA)'.'A (1968) H.C.D. rt;. 49 · 'citt1d· bo app1i.cabl0. -That c'cso is, ·in my view clcarly.'.disti1:;uishablc, f-rom the facts of this ·case. • • • & In that case· .tho _,nppo llant · claim-cd·-·tho-. disputed· plot of land . . ' . . as owner thereof •. ·1-t- ·w3s c.st ".blislfod h::-•,t · ab'out- ·:,t·c_p. yoars' · . .. bofor.o the ro-allqcn-hLori' she had left tho disputed 12nd. and had gone to live in .·;11othcr area at a considarubl-o distance therefrom, though- ·s>:- h8d loft, stnding on the 1-6:nd '='· lut _· ttof no. grant valuo • 1 '· . T1orc vy:as no .evidoncc th2t clurcllG ,such period of her abse:·.Jo tho" lnnd vms wor;tsd or dcvo)cipod by her. Tho vil::;;go commi ttoc allocatad'.tho cl.isputoci lar.d tj- tho respondent, as a result of .whioh appoilontinstitutcd tho proceedings allogh.a )hat the lpnd viro.s hers. an·d thc::t rospondon was a ·;r,Gi-:spsscr upon it.. Tho Primnry Court gave judgement in _favour of· tho appcllt;..n.t, but the same

was rver.sed ·by' t'he Distl'ct co·urt. On her appeal to. this cou!t, ]:J.er .ap1;>E;3al was dismi_sse:d,_by HAE:LYF; ·J .• :, .. as.he,. te:1.-was• holding, first, that it would have been neither good law 1ior in acc9rdance ·.with public- 1 )olicy to allo:rv a· plot holder to depart from .the land fo.r such ~ number of 7e-ars yvi.th :the. r$sUl t that ;the land may lie fallow or revert to bush;. nd sec.on.d, that once it becomes establi2:1c.J that there has been. no real animus revertendi, even though a hut r0mains 4.;hereonf the land merges in the common· pool of property available for distribution to members of the p1:-1,blic seek:: .. ng property to develop. In. tho. circtunstances of that 9aso there can bo no doubt that tho decision of HAMLYN. J., in SU.Ch case remains: to be good ··law-. ' However, unlike tho -i'ac 1 ;s 'in ... NYAGOBREe S case, in this cse tho appellant had not ceased _3Cti VO _co1:;.tr<?i and s.o of thd. land for .that long. No·r' was ho iLving ·a· tong distanco··f:rom such disputed land. Hero there vas ovidcnco that ovor since ho movod away from tho <iisputc' .. piece of land in 1974, to. tho day tho respondent claims to h:vo boon allocated such land, tho ·appellant. was in acti VO C'"-.-~~ol of tho land though not himself . using it.· Ho fir.st left :·. ·;_; in tho hands of oc Mpiduka who then used it· ·f·o'r- ·two yoe.rr!, and }ator in 1976, he· personally· ... •• • • . • i :., gave it to the village Y :~ .. th _Organization which used it c.oally fqr:- another h·o yoo.rs; aftor.#yvhtch 1ihe_.-,fospondcnt claims to have been al: .. ·>e c-.tod ·tho ::::::i.c by tho : __ yill?go. leadership. And .when ·· .-) all'jcd alloc[:tion was made; '-il{c · appellant was absent. It seems to me 'that· i_ri tho circu.mstancc .. s, ovon if such·. allocation haa.··'bocn ·:o,:i-c;oiisho'd, tho dispute. rJOul have boon · properly rosolvcd· in· fc..1vour of tho appo-lL.-:nt, as was a_lso· so hold .by t.p.is court ir.:thc ccsos3 of MASUBO KARERA vs. MARWA NYAHONKWA, (1967) H.C.D._n.36, per Ei;?.OKrlU, J.,. a·s he tp,on was; RAI 1 !iADHANI v. _SUNGU ( 1972) H.C.D. n.69, par KWIKDIIA, Ag.J •, as ho then.was and RUGACHW.A v. JOEL (.1972) H.C.D. n.122 1 per KISANGA, Ag. J. 1 as ho· then was referred to by tho loamed counsel for tho appellant In those cases tho rules woro laid that it would bo unjust to allocc:to occupied land without tho occupier being present, and that where land is already occupied the Village Development Committee must have

= 10 = · ..... . very strong ro-·asons for rc·-2.llocatin~ it to an1thcr parson •. Thμs· :in :tho. fi.ricil 2.n2.lysrs __ :::md for t:.c: above reasons ·I 2.l.low·. this• appeal; with ·c:-,::;-i:;::t sc·tting· aside tho decision . I • . • • • • . anFordor of tho lower.· .b;)0_l: 1t'e: cou~~ C±-d:cr. accordingly. ·· At l'ilicya. ' Order:. --:--4~ i' - JUDGE· --~ .·: .. ' ~ •< This j'udgcmcnt sho·,ld be notified. ·to th'.c parties , through _tho Di stri ::it· Court; r:c-.f .tnga ~ ,:•: ..... R. _j,_.A. f::}AIK.ASU J®GE ·,· ------ .· .. 11/3/91-. ''·. ': '. · 'I ·certify· tha,t .. ;.::i•s· is 2, tr.v.e and. coJJre ct _copy of the .- ~ ,-· · · ·-orie:;inal Judee·r. ,::'"it-. RJAM/KRM• . .. · . · . . . ·. : . ' •.••·· . . . .. .· . :f.11/ ;.,• ,, , ' , I .,i-,.)J.,.

• , .. /1 .. !" ,' ... , • / F/,~' "'C!HQ"".-t . _y • ,.., ~ -1.lu. ':1.'!!i DISTJ.ICT REGISTHAR ~- ... ··--·- ~ Date 3 25th September 199t.· , _ ... ! ... . , ,· \ . . , ... .. : :;. . ... :· .· :.: :, .: . ' . . \ .. i· •·.