Sebrikali Ya Kijiji Issuna vs Samson Mnkenyi (PC Civil Appeal No. 30 of 1990) [1991] TZHC 2388 (17 July 1991)

Ii:i.f 'rn.~ JIGH counr OF •rAHZ .NIA !i.T DODOMA (PC) CIVIL At?PEAL N0.30 OF 1990 (From the decision of the District Court of Sin3ida at Singida in Civil Appeal No,48 of 1989. Orlinal Civil Case No,46 of 1989 o± Ikungi Primary Court) SEBIIL\LI YA KIJIJI I.SdUHA. • t • • 1 1 .APPELL1\NT VERi3tfS SAlvISON JVC.<\JI(Ei.\JYI. • • , ••• , • , · •• , • , •• , , RE3201'i1)Ei:q'i1 JUDGMENT' The respondent Samsoni s/o Munkenyi lost in the suit he filed at Ikungi Primary Court, in Singida,District in Which he clair.ied a hut worth about 3hs.50,OOO/= against the appellruit village viz Issuna Village Council. The trial court gave two main reasons in favour of I_ssuna Village Council. First that respondent had sold the hut .:1Ild l:md in dispute to Ya 1 .cobo s/o Langu(DW .. 6) who in tum sold it to Mr. Bolcari s/o Bilau(Pl.if,4) and the latter gave it free of charge to IssW1a Villacre CoW1cil in 1975, Seqondly the trial court held th:1:t. the suit was time-barred, l;>ecause the respondent slept on his rights since 1975 ~ w'1ich is about 14 years to the tirJe he filed the suit in 1989, The respondent succcs- ,fuly appealed ·t.o Sinesida District Court, The District Court gve two reasons as to why it thought tho hut Q!ld land in dispute belon3cd to the present res:i_)ondent. First thc.:t. th0re was no evidence at a.11 t}1nt the s·1,id respondent ru::.d sold the but and. land vO Ycl<:obo s/o LQ.Ilgu(D\J,6) in 1968/1969, Secondly thn.t the suit was not time-barred beco.,usc the rc,3pondcnt wa worldn~ at Sepul<:a villae, n,wo.,y from his home ville13e of IssunQ, and so he had no time to gr bQ,ck·home ::ind deal up with the mn.ttcr. Aggrieved by tht decision, the Issuna. villa.go Council he:,s appc·tled to this court. It is common c-round thd the hut in dis:9utc was built by the rcw:i)ondcnt in 1965. It wns built of unburnt bricks ond thatched by 0 ra,ss. The rcs:L1onc1ent told the trio.l court thr..t in 197 4 he w.:1s :-ippointcd a W0-rd Executive officer :ind wa.s posted o.t Scpulm Ward.

. ,. 2 : .::-,# -u1a so respondent had to move nwo,y from Issunn. Villa,ge in 197 4 end go to .:3epuka Ward. He left his hnt behind with no ortc to b.kc c;,,,ro of it-. Tho respondent told the tril court th3t in 1975 ho p.'.lid a visit at Issuna villa.go d found tho.t the villcico council lletd to.Icon over his 19l<lccto. :tiut, which they had now roofed it with corrogated iron:i _ Tho villCl.go council- used tho hut to house n. grain-: grin.dine; mo.chino and ·10.tcr they used it. o.s a villo,ee shop. The re3:pondent testified .-:i,t tho'· trial th".'..t he r:tlscd no objection with tho village council, :1s he· hop..:d he would 2Jllic:1.bly settle tho mntt3r with the ,villai:;c n.ut'.1oritios once he retired from employment. In 1984 tho res 1 Jondent was tr2I1sferred to his home village o.s Ha.rd Executive Of.acer whero bp worked for two yc-::.rs m.d then rctirocl.- After retirement, ho joined tho villngo ,1ovcrnmoht as a □ cr:ibor . '.- .- . ,.1-- . on 4/11/1986. _ llnd on 4/12/86 he was appointed Cho.irmrui: -of ·t.hc villn,go . shop w;.uch w:::i.s housed in tho hut in dispute. He w1.1s Chcir;-Jan of the vill::1gc shop for throe y,o.rs, tlnt io until 1989 when ho rosi91od. In ~ ~ 12,,to 1989 he filed t .iis suit, tha.t is 14 yo.'1rG a.ft or ho hcl.cl ab::mdoned· tho hut. The respondent _donicd th.::i.t 11:l 1968/1969 ho hr..d sold tl10 :-h.it to 1'1r. Y::ucobo s/o fo.n(Dw.6). Tho tho hut in ca.so for.cl.ppolla.nt's villQGo council w:1s to tho effect th::i.t . . . ·,·, . r;_ . - . .- . dispute w::i.c sold to Yclcobo fJ/o L:me,u(m!.6) by °fhu rospondnt 1 s mother. Tho s:rla. m! .6 stated tlnt ho bouGht tl1e hut for . . - . Shs. 70/= '.md th.:1.t tho mother wn.s selling it on bohJ..f of ·he roapondcnt. Thon DW.6 testified thit lie sold the ·hut· for Sl10. 260/= in· ) 969 to on Mr.B,1kn.ri s/o Bilciu(P1'!.4). And P1·!.4 testified t!.1.:it in, 197.1 (but thu vill::..go Council s1,id it w0,s in 1 915) he r:;::wo tho hU:t fr0c of c:1.:1r 6 0 to the vil•l.-:i,go council n.ftor ta.kin o.wo.y tho roofine rnft0rs ::ind tho tlmtcM. 1 .1i:; grnsa. Tho Ch:1irraan of tho ville,.go Co111"1c~~ Mr. Jon,'J.thn.n M. Mwanja(D'!.1) testified thc1,t th3y rGpG.i.red tho hut by usinc; .some 4000_ bricko w:uch . they hd ma.do and oroctod tho falling wlls, put up now roofing rftors ::ind covered it with corrugated iron shoots. N0w doors and po.rtitions wore m.:i.do on the ht. So tl1.e villn. 0 o council circ,u.Jd t:10,t ·t:wy w ro lawfully . . Givon tho but by Bo.ko.ri s/o Bilo.u (P 1 .:.1.4). ;\ncl in ::my co. □ 0, they nr311-Jc1 ::::inc9 refJJ)ondont did not r,.:-..iso any objection frora 1975 •1~'· -~ · ·, ""'"' 1 ~ • 1 then, it obould be taken tlnt the but w.:is o.ba.ndonocl :::i,nd · tho vill:-.1.c;c council h:J:d the riGht to t'.:i.ko it ov:Jr. • •. /3

.... 3 In my judgment I will st.:1rt with tho first point t1r1.t r.Jsponc1ont had solc1 tho hut in dispute to Y::J<:obo s/o kmgu (D !.6) through his mother • . On this point I side with the Distri9t Oourt rather th::n the Prirory Court. Th0rc ws absolutely no ovidoncc th.:1t respondent hd sold his hut to D'.-.T.6. Aftor ::i.11 tho mother of the ros;iondont w::i,s not culled n.s a wi tncss, .'ll"J.d so no ono c::u1 tall if tho scid mother bud ·r.c:2.lly sold tl10 hut :mcl if she had sold it we cnnnot toll if she ha.d .tllo m:mdn.tc from th.s respondent. Evid.cnc.s w-:1,s indeed la.cldng to tho. effect that rospondont h'.1d sold tho hut. Tl1.Jrofore the disposin 0 of tho l1Ut by Bclrn.ri s/o Biln.u(PW.4) in 1975 to the villti::;e council.has no log to st::md on. However I find th:it tho vill::v.;o council, st:?m1s on a. s{IeonGor ground wh thoy r.:.rcu,:d th'.'lt the rosi)onclont hCLCl :J.bc.ndoned tho hut when h1 r::uaocl no objection sinco 1975 up to 1989 ::i period of 14 yonrs. It is clo;::.r . ' thn.t tho villno council W.'.18 occupying the hut from 1975 to 1989 unclor It is tho law tllnt if soraoono occu:i)ios somobocly 1 s l 1I1d, under al-;r11:ree _9..uJ2_0.i_(!}2 for ovor 12 y,Y1rs wi tl:J. g_o .PT_o_t_ from t:10 ownor of th2.t li:.nd, tho occupL:r obt:-.in,s tho ownership of t:.1:1t 1--nd. . ,,,,,. . . This doctrine of ]2_rcscri_J2_°li.2E_ finJs it _,'.1Ut1ority fror.1 it0m 6 of tho . _Cu'.?tona.;y k.w(_Limi t.:-:.tio~~- . .2.£.E'.£<?,00di11,3s} Rul-?G H oP.<?..!JJ.1 _o_f __ 1.2?-4.• 'rl10 tri::-J. M.1,Cistro..to w:,,G wrone to quot0 tho ~~~ttiori Act lfo.10/.1.2.11. wliich is not ;-,.p:.)lic'.lblc to Prinary Courts. Bo. th.'lt :1,c it r,1.:1y, th0 rooponclont h;,c.l slept on his ri 0 11tc for 14 y.1.-:rs 1,11cl oo hu is tino-bc.rrac1. Even if ho w:1s :1way in ''..,1ot:.1cr v'ill::-,ce: or w:,.s busy cl:1iwin3 his :ppnsion, still tha.t did not prevent hira from filing tho nui t wi t:1in 2, period of 12 y0c.,rs from J975. · 11.ftor u-11 filin5 .'.l ouit d.000 not ,mt::i.il r:Iuch business but t:J.k0s only ~ fuw rri;1Utoo with a. court ro:;iatry. Therefore . . tho r01:liJonc1ont cannot be hon.rd to corr;;,ln, :1.s h.:: slopts on his ric;hts. He h.1,s only hiosulfto bl .n.:) for tho prodici.1:1-.:-nt h0 ho.,s founc.1 himsvlf in. In the cvont tho n.j_Jpc:1 succoc:clo. I J.llow tl10 o..ppo.cl witl1 cofJts Tho judG·nent of tho District Court is sot 2.silc, while tho.t of·tho Primc,,ry Court is rostorod. Orcl.)r .:iccor;:;ine;ly. COURT: JuC:.cr.1ont cL)livorac1 in chn.i:1bora '.".t Sincid::i. in t!10 prcs,:mcc of both p'.'..rthls. ___ · - ···- · - -.·-... ~ J'\J. L. M1J.,.iLUS:~--iJY-A-----..i JUDGE 17.7.1991