Thomas Mathayo Mrema vs Joyce Mathayo Mrema (PC Civil Appeal No. 24 of 1989) [1990] TZHC 495 (18 December 1990)

IN TE:m IITGll COURT OF TA.NZ.ANIA J~T JI.RUSH.A. (PC) CIVIL J.PPJAL NO. 24 cf 1989 / (FROM THil DECISION OF T"lB DL3TRICT COURT OF UOSIII AT l,lOSIIT IN CIVIL APPJ:UJ, NO. 2 OF 1989) TllOM:t.S l',1/i.TilAYO l:l:REMl ... - .•••••••••••••• • ••• , ••••••••••• APPELLANT VERSUS JOYCE 1./fJ.:..TllJ..YO MRI1:MA • ••••••••••••• , , , • , • , •••••••• , , •• RESPONDENT• JUDGMENT. This is a second appee..1 from Moshi District Court ~ivil ilppoeJ. No. 2

f 1989 orie,inally Old Moshi Primary Court Civil Case No. 2 of 1988. In the saicl. primary court, the plaintiff Thomas Mrema sued hi~ step mother, Joyce w/o Uathayo. Mrema. for rocov0ry of a sha.mba he inheri tad from his gral1d.fath0r Martin Hroma way back in: 1942 when he was still 2, child. Owing to his t:1on . . . . - young age, his late•.fath0r }l",,t).1c,yo Mroma took ., ohc:,rge over. the shern.ba. Tho sdcl ft,.th0r liv:o.d. on t!10 lr>..nd in dispute w:i. th ii1angom, hi~ ,first wife and mother of th.o appolle.p.t Thomas Hror.10.. Late~ ll.'c.thayo Mroma chμsod I-'Ianc;oui and her son r..tWG:Y• Ile then ma.rriucl £1.11othcr woman whom :10 also subsequently oh:1sod away. In 1960 lk:tha.}'O Mrcoa IUc.'UTrU>d a trd wifo 1 Joyco, tho rospon:lcnt with whom ho•cohabitod 5'.)n tho suit land. until ho cliod in 1975. Before ho c}.iod, MP .. thayo ~~oma had started bJ<l.ing a house 11t !,iis Shia shll.Llba wh0ro ho was to move with his .. r.ospondont wif o to onablo tho nppollant to repossess ,.tho sha.mba his grn24fathor_ hr.d boqcatp.od to him in 1942. IIowcvor,, time. was aisainst l,'Ia thayo '.r.h·omn. for· ho· died before he built, complotod and oovcd to his Shi a house, When Matha.yo. J!.μ-rna. dL:d, _ his appollt. son dcriandod vacant ·possession· of tho shn.nba from tho rosp.ondont. The lator ccclinod to vacate giw.ng rise to tho l)rosent suit •. Tho priIUc.--.ry court allowed Thomas Mrcma to ropososs the . . .... land with imuediate effect thcroby_pronpting tho rospondont stop □ other to appeal. Tho appellate Districi_cou:rt upheld tho fincling of tho prinary court that the l~,:."'c. actual_ly bolongs to .Thomas ?,1roma boce.1.JDc ho inhori tod . it from his g.ca11c.1fn.thor. Nonetheless the appo:i.lato District Court allowed thQ roSJ?ondont . ' . .. ' ncloti to occupy the llouso because it was tho r.1r.>trir.1onial homo she li vccl in •• _, .••••• /2

II 2 11 with hc;:i.' lat9 hU3br..nd. Th;) appellant than loclgoc'.. this second app0Bl u.rging tho court to ordor tho rosponQqnt.stop.uother to awellru:1t' s shc11,1ba. vacate th0 house 011 the Tl1e issue is whether tho respondent stCJ) D011cr s:iould bo ordered to vacc,to th,) ne,trir.1onial house. Tho rcspond,:mt 2.c.lni ts on Pe 6 of tho typocl p1·ocoedin@3 of tho prio:::ry court th;:t tho land in t:isputc belongs to tJ10 n:;:>J)ollant· She ·s:tatod.: 11 . Najua ardhi hiyo ni .. · n,li ya radai. rt in E2.rlicr on sho ste,tod. in hor cxaDin?.tior{ghiof: 11 . . l·T , ~ - ·' •. ,_ • • . • . • kun • • • • • • • • •.. •C::U3;.1ant;-sa 1,l .21 al. vi rae.Juzi · ir.r.1u.ru '· niondoko. spruondoka kwD, sa.bc.bu sikuwa ·na oahdi :pongino pa kwond.a •. Uilir;ish2.;uri radai ajcngc nyunba ha.po tuomloloo kuio1i hapo. Nilir.1hakikishia ktmraba; nikifa si tazikwa hapo ila kwonyo lilc sht• .. nba ln 'Shia alilonib-cl.lia. maroJ2or.:ru. bn ba yoko." Th:) b.bov-o extract froi:1 tho responclont 1 s tcdir:iony· at the ·trial clearly shows that she ad.mi ts thc.t. the appellant has tHle ·to the land in question. Since the respondent has worked on th,) land. f;:;_nco ;:_1he was married in 1960 to date, unlilte the appellant who has a cUGtoma:rr ti tl0 of inh0ri tancc ovor the said land but has not worked on it since J.1is l2to fn.th:,r chased his mother ·. a.way r,mny ye, rs a&:,-o, it is , jw:rt and oqui tablo t:1.2,t tho respondent sll.01.'.ld be oomi,.:ionsatcd for the lrbour she put on tho lro1t so that she· can coniploto her Shia houso and vacate tho ai.YDollant =s hous::: pr:tno:i.pally bocau.sc t:b.0 hncl in disputG includes all that iH on the se.id la1-:.cJ. from tho soil to tho blue: sky above it. Considering that tho appellant, J.lj_s lc:to fa.thor, his mother and the second wife of his f2.t).1er n.lGo worked on t:10 1mi t lc1.nd, e11d , · considering further that t!10 ros1Jondont usccl tho r,ppolh':.nt' s lwd to 02,rn . . f • . .,,.;t$ 0 uld be rcasonablo cor,me11sa-tipp. . hor living, shs. 170,000 = compensatio,:t..for hor uorK on tlio 1.r:J1U "In q1:1v ... t1011- Such compensation _shouJ.cl enable tho responcl.0nt to comploto and. occuvy her ·········/3

II 3 " Accordingly tho court upholds tho deoisiornJ of both lower courts that ;,ct;he appolhmt is tllo owner tho shn.mbn in dispute. As tho 0112,mbri. includes· all ·,: · \lie st:c'uctures, crops 1 plants wd fixtures on it·, tho appellant is also tho -:1<·- ;townor of· the houses on tl10 sh&rnl)a. Tho appollmt is .ordered to pay shs. )~ 70,000/a· compcnsr, tion to the respondent for t\o labour she put in tho shamba ~- . . . · •:~inco she lived thoro from 1960 to da to basicc1.Hy booauso during those yoe..rs '}tho appellant has never worked. on t110 said 12.ml. Tho rosponclont shc..11 vacate :/tho 12l1d when the appollt>..nt pn.ys tho componsntion. To that extent th.0 appeal : sucooods partially so there s:1.all be no orclor for costs. It is so ordered. Arusha tllis 18/12/ 1990. in person. : in person. E. J.IT. I,TIJNUD, JUDGE:. 18/12/1990. -:2=.h JUDGE. 18/12/ 1990. 1