Kibwana Waziri vs Mabaya Njambira ((PC) Civil Appeal No. 60 of 1983) [1991] TZHC 2224 (16 August 1991)

2 c UM), THE UNIT.. RUBLIC OF ITZLNIA' IN THE HIGH COtJR'T OF TNZL1il1 MORO GOBO... (po) CIVIL L.PFEtL NO. 6 OF 1983 KIBWtNA WA.RI • . .• • • • • . . • versus IBA.Y4'. NJIMBIRi. 0 ' • •. 0 • • • S 0 0 S •' •° R.PO11D1T 3 UD. C .M....N T.: Th±s.. is. an. appeal against the decision of the District Coux of ICilosa sitting in its. first appel1át jurisdiction.' The respondent had uuoceasfu1ly suod the plaintiff before the Masaxizc Frimy Court in Kilo Distict on a suit for trcsspaaso 110i howecr 9 wals suOcosaful in the District Court of ICilosao It is against the doision of the District Court that the instant appellant had appealed to this court, If I may be permitted to dieTaoss for a while I wish to say that it. is evident from thc:rcM of proceedings of this court that though the petition of appeal of this matter was. lodged and fees paid 'on October 6, 1q83 it was. not until July 30 1988 that the matter waa. submitted for admission.' It :was. on L4.ist 39 1988 when the matter was. admittocL for appoali I have been unable to . f orboari to high light this unfortunate and. very disturbing incident as. I firmly believe the old adage that rtjus.ticc is sweetest when it is Vcshcst"a The instant matter can not 3 by any s.tandards, ..bo described as fresh 0 The matter, after all these yoars is. now stalce As.. there is. nothing in record to reasonably account for this in-ordinato delay for the cUspossal of the appeal and it may scrve.. no useful purpose to jimont I thought I could do justice to the case by delivering ju.dont this aftor- nOon rather than reserving the juclent for another day. It has boon established in the evidence of the witnesses. who testified on behalf of the appellant/defendant at the court of first instance, that the appellant was allocated the portion of land, which is the subject matter of this appeali by the village government in 1979. .-..../2.

wXvT tratq. .iotj.i So Tl od jo Otto st& .inoo tiq. otjq. jo txotstoop vzlj , •osn tmtr!4cIo o. qç 2utnd qott oxo& xq uoq.sonb Ut - PLM o UOtCIflooO Ut OIE& JJT rP2Id/W0l)UOcT9aI otjq. ;o uoptto ot4 ptr ponds1p ot. u-ctq. .ou sv& j;tutcI/uopuodso.i o t?notq tq ;.xnoo .zq. otq. 4cq pOpJ000.1 OoutYpt&o XOtO !'U PflOT St O.IOt JSO I.USUt Ot tq QO3q.g o. .1rLoA?opuo &ou rttis I tott& stxoso.i Ot. .10; tTOt[. jo Am ?tttpIottdn Ut SOtqrtot;;tp 0iq3.xop -tsuo0 0Al317i I qMsqno ot. tio.i 4VU5 pu ssopioo q.sni I rnoo o11odd qsrçy otj. ;o uostoop ot. u;qsrts .zo ootrtqsu srj jo q.xnoo otq ;o uostoop Otq. ooso.r oq .Iototp& opçoop oq, ponbo.1 Aou s moo stq. qtq ptmoJ oq stq ttr sç etocId Stt[. 30 9f.SOO OAlt[ flIL& WIIOdd pu trç I ptio trpo000ns 9OdcI s'çt. qUoAo OT[q. uj •p0000rLS o. 113odd szq. .1oj sootrto q.uptrnq oa O.1Ot 1[tJ .ttOAO Ot. trç 4 1. * G 2 trrpOOo0.1d

• oq& otq. 'saçy -inu ouo pU poououuoo VTxq. otq. o.zo;oq potr.1; sOflSst Ott 0.101k O.10tJ -:oouo.ijo ;o os'io .10; q.r ooripo.iclo.i ptnots i 3TUTIN. I '. totp& ihrp&otto; ottrp?s iVq pOpfltOtZ0O 09.1q.S2?t1 Otj; t14 STtt UI 'UOTSTOOP iVO.T.1O2U etjq. tjq.p& ptO.Jtp pratt .Vqt su0sO.i o .ou pp q.xnoo oq.LI TT oddv q.s.r; oi lL 'tsflq OqtX pt PUT otq uoqicTn000 oquT orro ot uot .0 uo;op/.tz?floddi3 otq. .to; Ot. "ST qi ovaoquou UntO Ptt

iOS SItJ 1q POfltq. S1k !)U'OT L6 oq dn 004 q.?tq. pu? ptr.r: tro St pU Otq. .ttfl. 0 OUOptAO ttt W10tS S?t[ 0 q.txpuo;op /uopuodSo.1 Ot[q. Sq poThtosto tcooq evu, xoqvej sçt •q.t pouopu%q p?t Ot 0? PtTVT Otq. .IOAO tIT'OTO A3( .0U U?O 3Jtqut? -EcI/q.tIopU0cSo.1 Otfl. 0?1& ttOtStOOp qT.1OCtJ otJ ouo;oJq.txoodct? otq. ;o xno; u 0?A uo-gs-çoOp 1t.10CU otq. .nq ;; tZt?td/U0pUodsO.1 otq. .1oJ ptmo; oouiq.strç q.s.r; jo otfl. q.' s.108800? tt0t!i0t.tt01 Otq. JO OttO i2t. ttOçqttOU O. UOtt!.1Od u; I "0nSS Stt. UO TIAPI Oq. ..'uopmxd qx ptr; fOtZ op i oo stt. jo oqst ot oq. p.tuo ?trWt PU OotXq.stzt .9.1t; JO ..ILOO OFL4. iq pOXOSO.1 OtX S11k .IOq.q2tI STtEL •0.X0? OttO ! ~ rtocp , SOXflS?O ç 2t poq..IOSev p?t qawp U0;0P/ j z ~ J jjodclv otjq. so.iotp& Go.1ov ol&q. soxrt0?ou q.T sis jJ trcoI/wo1DuocISo.1 otj •u014.IocT ot. jo DZtS 0. B? ttOOO12BtjD OS!? 'St O.1OtJ, •oqxdstp ttt 'l&OU pw ;O uoqiod ot. oCq?.1 ot. uowt V UL qOU ptr 6L61. U! S31k q.'3t(q • ztoss PIP so otz.pi. sctt wo ;; ut?td/.ttoPttodso..t ot( •qqo qs0t5.?t 'sq.ç q E?i& ?txOdu)I '.)t J11I ?t[o 0Uttt) Pt ttTA ??tVE9Cfl xoj OA?ik b -L T I. txotp& O.IOCI Ot Wt.ttt 0?1&. It qOt. obqoU WcOc1?T1? OV% I PtW '1 0q.IiCISTP U! .0U St q j

'.3- od. Had the learned District Majistrate a4c1ros8Jhis, mind, to the evidence in record he would havo not failed to see that there was abundant and infact u.noontrover-tcd ovicl.enco that the respondent/plaintiff was still the owner of the land in dispute though he was. not in possession of the said land aS. it is his children who were in pbysical possession of the said land,. The real point for consid.oraiion waa whotber the village committee had authority to allocate the said land to the zIppcllant/.cfendaxit. If the- aziswor was in the affirmative vhothcr or not the respondent/plaintiff was ontitlod to c,omcnsation. !s; the decision- of the court. of first instance is. not in harmony- with the weight of evidence. I hesitate to rostore it. I am f howover persuaded that in t1o.44t <f the exuilabla evidence tho decisio, oi tho first appellate court to al-low the appeal can not bo faulted. t do howavz' • wih.to point it out that .1 respdct fully part company with thc-loarnd Diatrict jatt ots. reasoning that the, failure of the trial court to fxei issues was fati to the proceedings. In the ca*o of iIORMEN it, Q111$4 MOTOR 'pNSPORT -- (199) 1449 131 the -Oou't- of for Eastei'n 4frioa hold that failure to frar.io issues is an irrogularity which is not £ital as long s the parties at the trial blow what is the real quost ion between them e and evidone is taken on it and the - coiArt cona.c1aa it. I respootfulty ad.pt the reasoning in NOi1 case (&pra) and say that in the ins.teit appel the proceedings - of the court of first instance were valid in the ligb4 . a . th decision as. NORM1.i1 1 S. case. (Supra) and having regard to the fact that all along the part ics. know what way the Teal qu.ostion botwoon thorn, us, there was no evidence to show that the -viilago Committee had sutherity, to rollocato the land in op.ostion to the appollant/defonclant it was wrong for the court of first instance to dispospessthe espondont/. p].a.intiff of land whieh was his from 1950 1 s 4 The first appellate court s in the light of the foregoing, ought to have supported the decision of the dissenting assessor as his decisionis. supported-by. the available evidenco which was not ohallongod at the court, of. first instance. - - - -t •O.!b.S/4.

-4- In the light of the focgoing it is. only fair and reasonable to confirm the decision of the first appellate court in allowing the appeal on the grounds I have s hopefully, labourod to show in my totegone axxalysiS4 o hold otherwise would. be a traveatty of justice. having regard to the very nature of this case it is. only fair to lot parties.. boar their om cos.ts* brdor. acooMingly. -N Jo J. JUDGE.. 16/8/1991 Court; Pha jüdtiont is delivrcd in the presence of the patics. who have entered appearance in person. AT IIOROCORO 3. .J. UGU3T, 199 JuDGE.