Ismail Bushaija vs Republic [1991] TZHC 13 (14 August 1991)
Judgment
Ismail Bushaija vs Republic [1991] TZHC 13 (14 August 1991)
Reported
Share this document on WhatsApp opens in new tab __ Share this document on X opens in new tab __ Share this document on Facebook opens in new tab __ Share this document on LinkedIn opens in new tab __ Share this document by email __
__Save
Report a problem
Is there something wrong with this document?
Problem category *Incorrect informationMissing informationNo PDF downloadDocument is emptyDocument is not accessible on my deviceOther
What's the problem? *
Your email address *
CancelReport problem
__
- Share
- Report a problem
__
Ismail Bushaija vs Republic [1991] TZHC 13 (14 August 1991)
Copy citation __Save
- __Document detail
- __Related documents
- __Citations 1 / -
Citation Ismail Bushaija vs Republic [1991] TZHC 13 (14 August 1991) Copy Media Neutral Citation [1991] TZHC 13 Copy Court High Court of Tanzania Law report citations
1991 TLR 100 (TZHC) Copy
Judges Chipeta J Judgment date 14 August 1991 Language English
Summary
Convictions for trespass and malicious damage quashed where ownership of land was genuinely disputed; civil action advised.
Flynote
- Criminal law — defence of bona fide claim of right — Ownership dispute must be resolved in civil proceedings prior to criminal conviction
- Trespass — Trespass to land — Entry into land not knowing that it is another person's land — Court should not proceed with criminal charge but advise civil action
Read full summary
Unlock this feature
Sign up to save documents, read summaries and access more features.
Already have an account? Log in.
__
Ask AI
Ask questions and understand this document faster using AI.
__Ask AI
Skip to document content
Chipeta, J.: In Bukoba District Court, the appellant, Ismail Bushaija, was charged with and convicted of the I offences of criminal trespass and malicious damage to property contrary to sections 299
(a) and 326 (1) of the Penal Code and was sentenced to pay a fine of Shs. 2,500/= in respect of each count. The A appellant was dissatisfied and so has appealed to this court. To a large extent the facts are not in dispute. They are as follows: The complainant, one Ernest Ndyamukama (P.W.1) told the court that he owns a shamba in which he has planted various trees in Ibwera village, Bukoba. On B 10th September, 1988, at about 1.00 p.m he saw the appellant and three of his servants cutting trees in P.W.1's shamba, and in all they cut down 481 trees. When the appellant was asked by P.W.1 as to why the appellant was C doing such a thing, the appellant retorted by telling P.W.1 that he should go and ask the people who had given the trees to him. Later the complainant reported the matter, surprisingly, to the Ward Office and the District Commissioner. Eventually the matter found its way to the Police and then to the Court. In this defence, the appellant said that the shamba in dispute is his own shamba and that it had earlier been the D subject-matter of a civil suit in which he was the successful party. He called witnesses who, to some extent, backed up the appellant's claim. With respect to Mr Nasimiro, learned counsel for the appellant, I tend to agree that this case boils down to a dispute E of ownership of the shamba which is the subject-matter of these criminal proceedings. It seems to me, therefore, that this is a defence of bona fide claim of right. The learned trial magistrate blamed the appellant for not producing in court the judgment in the alleged civil case. F However, in this memorandum of appeal drawn up by his learned advocate, the appellant alleges that the civil case was Ibwera Primary Court Civil Case No. 2 of 1987. In my view, it is wrong to convict a person for criminal trespass when ownership of the property alleged to have G been trespassed upon is clearly in dispute between the complainant and the accused. As was pointed out by this Court in the case of Saidi Juma v R [1968] H.C.D. n. 158, cited by Mr Nasimire, when, in a case of criminal trespass, a dispute arises as to the ownership of the land, the court should not proceed with the criminal charge and H should advise the complainant to bring a civil action to determine the question of ownership. That is exactly what the trial court should have done in the present matter. For these reasons, the appellant's conviction cannot be allowed to stand. This appeal accordingly succeeds. The I convictions are hereby quashed and the sentence set aside. The complainant is
A advised to seek redress in a civil court. The fine which, I note, was paid, shall be refunded to the appellant forthwith. Appeal allowed.
B
__Related documents
More documents like this one
__Suggestions generated by AI.
Unlock this feature
Sign up to save documents, read summaries and access more features.
Already have an account? Log in.
▲ To the top