Valentine Qamara vs Baha Matle (PC Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1984) [1990] TZHC 614 (21 September 1990)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT AiTI (Pc) -CIVIL APPEAL NO 4 OF 184 (ORIGnuL BABATI CIVIL APPEAL N007/83 BEFORE;. N.K0 MAQNDO, Esq., S0D.M.) VALENTINE QAMIRA c o .OAPPELLANT • ' . . (Original Respondent) versus BAHA MATLE •. •. . •. • ••, .....RESPONDENT '. . (original Appellant) JUOGEMENT S . This is an appeal against the decision of the District "Cdurt of Hanang which reyersed the majority decision of the Priii''ary Courtof Bashnet 0 . . . :.. Th respondent had sue the Secretary of Long Village, Bashnt, one Valentine Qamr.a (the present appellant), for corpinsation in the sum of shilli'çs 24001= which was said to be the' value of crpps he had planthd in a 1¼ asre shamba but which subseqeuntly were taken over by villagers, allegedly on th orders of the appellants;, During the trial in.the Primary Court it appeared undisputed that the shamba in which.the. respondent planted the crops initially belonged to his father. After the death of his father the shamba was allocated to his mother, but it was he who was cultivating it.. It would appear his mother subséuently died • . . The respondent was allocated his own shamba measuring thre acres, which was apat from the shamba which previously belonged to his father, then to his mother. • . ' It was also not in dispute that the respondent received a 'letter apparently from the Village. Office. He went to the village office on 27/9/82 in connection with the letter. He met the appellant0 On 26/10/82 the respondent received another letter which also apparently came from the village office. He learnt from theletter that he was to leave the acre shamba for use by villagers. By then ...... /2

2 - By then h had a1redy ploughed it and planted maize, strghuni and beans, among other cropsb He had also done the first stage w€eding. Subs.equently the villagers did the second weeding and eventually harvested the crops0 I have noted from the Primary Court record dat'd &L th December, 183 that seven bags of maize and five tins of beans had been harvested from the shamba. : What Was..in dispute was the respondenb was informdfön ..2.7/9/82L.that the 1½ Acre shamba had been a1lcated to villagers, which was before he ploughed it and planted crops ?n1 .1 o . ' . . Theofldent and his witness Safari Tlatla s,.p a (P.W.2) said on 27/9/82 when they visited the village office the appellant merely told the respondent to wait to hear f6fn the village chairman, who wa'snot then present0 However, udder cross—examination by a court assessor, POW.2 sasid.;, _ !'Si)u : tu.lipofika ofjs4. ye KijijI mdaj. .(no,w..reppondent) 1iambiwa. na Katibu wa Kiiji kuwa aache sharnba,al,ilokuwa • . . •i4tumi a huko, 4w1,i" If the witne s . .~ ,, wad refrring.,o, th v.ist of 27/9/82 then he contradictd' ; his. earlier, Sateiient anØ that of the repondent to sy tha, viLe village secretary gave notice to the respond'ent after all,1 before he..cultivated and planted crops.., on the sharnba. That was also what ;the. appqlant told the trial court. The asSeSSqrS apparently'; uMerstood and believed 'that the respoident got prior ntice o stop using the shamba. As a result, they hld that therepondent was not entitled compensation for: cultivtng. and planting on the shamba in dpfianca of the village scretar'.s notice. Such a decision by the majority of the Primary Court cannot be said to be unreasonable, so that the District Court was not entitled to reverse it. This appeal.e.o.o/3 1

• 3 - This appeal must succeed. The deis1on of the Dist'jct Court is quashed and set. aside. The decision of the Primary Court is restored. The appellant shall get his costs in this court and in the iwer courts. / At Babati: (J. A. Mroso) 21/9/90 JUGE Judgim'nt read in the presence of parties. JA/MJK '1