Petro Daud vs Bupamba Gogomoka (PC Civil Appeal No. 270 of 1990) [1991] TZHC 2392 (19 July 1991)

'J' ,, ,;:.·-. ~ UT T:E :Im: COURT 07 TAlJZAJ:;IA iT I!fU fJTZli. /.PF:811,: ... TE JURISDICTION (PC) CIVIL ' .. PP:ELL lIOo 270 OF 1990 ITT (Fron the deci'oion of t:.e District Court of Sengcrena District at Scngorer:1a in Civil Appe2.l }:To. 12 6f 1990 - Before C. l'l. Shilogile,::I:sq., Principal District Maf...ris··:;ate and Urban Primary Co::r-' Civil Case IJo.12/;o) VERSUS BUP[iBA GOGOHOKA. ••• o o ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • .RESFOWDENT J u D 1 G n E N .T ... . . . .:. ...... :: : .- SEICULE 2 J.,: · The respondent to ·ti:.:'.is appeal Buparaba Goe:;onolca successfuily sued ·9hc appellnnt Petro :oaucl;i, for a piece, of lci.1cl _in the Sengcromc. Prir.12..ry Court. This was Civil C::;se i:To.12 of 1990,. In ·i;b.e se..id stti. t, ·[;:1e respondent oontenclecl. -:;:ird; t!::.e 2.ppellw.1t lro. encroached upon his l°"-1d w::iol:l w::i.s allocated to .biB in 1976 by the relevant village Committee- procoss, The respondent rs cl.:i.:L--a, was su;pportod by t::.e ovid,.moc of Tibezw:..a Filela, PW2, 1(:0 was i1 ncnber of the vill['.,{;e allocc1tio11 Cor:ni-t·i;c · • • •r 1., which allocated the piece of land "111 question in 1976. if'l'I, , Tl:e respondent also clair.1ed that since t:.c l&.:1d wc.s allocatr-xl ·to hira 1 ho had been peacefully occupying it until in :eiecember 1989 u:..:.cn tl:.e appellant enoroc10hcd upon H On the other the appcllc::.nt, contended ttat t]'.G land uo.s ·his and. that it was given to hin wa;r ~1ack in 196D. [;,.s ~c?observcc1., the trial court ntercc,_ j .. :c:Cnent for the rcsponclont. It however orclcrcd. t!10 -rcsponc,_ont -o coi:,po:::1sa·l;e tho appellnnt for improve:·.:en· ;10 :.1nd effected on tI.:.c J.£.,..::.1.l Tb.e appellant was a. 6;3Ti0Yed by -chis decis;i.0:1, a.;_1cl he appealed to the District Court of Sene:;oro::!a District at Scnccrcaa. But his appoaJ. was not successful. -:b __ ,..:i.p:poli2.to District Cou::..·· clso set aside the l !,.s order for co □ p.e.usati,011 2.,3 lancl in dispute bad lio01:. L1 J.;h0 responc":.ont' s ' . 11 t' . J • .I> 11 ~ d t ' occupm;ion a ,18 cE1e 1 Ii was a oca.rn o 1ir.1 1.:iTil t.: .e appcllnnt encroached on it in 1989,. Tho appellant l:.as not appea,l:cd to this Co1..i.rt., I have perused and considered the cvidonco on record 2...:1d I aJ..1 inclined to. th view -c:.:.2:ii t:.:.o respondent ost2.bli13.'~od hiG claiD, th2.t is, tl:.e land was his.· Tb.e ovid.oilOOOf' PW2:1 one of the l)Gl'Sons who wore charged with the duty of c11loc~~-tion land at t~~o tiue, clearly eSJl.i"'-hlis>ed and sv.;,ported tl2c respon0..oat's clair.i• .·,,..

2 I cl.so agr.ee wH.!.i -21.e appellate Dist:dc:;; Co,_·,-;; t~:at tl:cr.e W2£ no basis for the conpcnsa·tion order in this case. T:.ie rcspondcr:-li according to tho evic"..Gnce o;.1 record, was in contim.1oi:.s occupation of tlle piece of land since 19T6. I:..nd that it was cii1J.:, in 1989 when the appell2.n-'.; invaded tho la1c.:t i:.1· question. No oviclencc was 2.lso o..d.rluccd to show the kincl of improvcnmit or. ·:.1t developDont 1 _ the appellai1t had cffoctGd. on the le .. nd in question. Thia appeal therci'oro fails and it is di'?Diusocl w:i. tb. costs. AT l:IW/JJZA 19}7/91,. W o II. S:J:IQJLE JUDGE. JUDGE, . ;, . .. 1.- • ... , . . ··•·.L•.: