Lauti D/o Nkanda vs Palwanda Mwakyonde (PC Civil Appeal No. 46 of 1989) [1990] TZHC 463 (20 September 1990)
Judgment
-}\ ! L
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TAl\TZANIA
AT MBEYA_
(PC).CIVIL APPEA;L NO"46 Of 19;~9,
• ..... . . ·• . • . 1 i·· :· .• . . .. : :J ... .' . . . . . .·
(Fr-:)m -the ··clecisicin. of the District Court of-·:
Kye la Dis.trio:;;- . .at,
1
Kyl-? ;~ Ciyi.l Appeal No~ .
15 of 1989 and lk616" Primary Court -Civil
... : . C;3se No:. 4 .-of 1989 · : -
LAUTI D/.O ·NKAND.l. . .
• •
0 0. • 0
• . APPELLANT.· .
PALWANDA TJIWiiKYONDE ••
CHUA, J.
.... -~ {
/('., ." .· .. ·
Versus
• •
. . . 0 . t- 0 •
!," :.
·,
J U D G M E N T
-~~.
.,RESPONDENT
. ' . .
.,
.,
The appellant filed -a suit in the Primary Court -;f Ikolo•'•t:n Wbi.eh
she c4limed for a piece of land from th:respondent. ·· Thh.-;·basis of
• ' I
her claim was· that the i)ie 6e of larid was being tilled by her mother
who had died~ Hor fathor, also dead by the time the sui_t was ::flcd,
was alleged to 'havo.";.l.cft a will that his children would conti'nue using
. ·. ... .. \·· .:,
., ·'
the lnnd their mothers were usingo But no evidenc.c was adduced to
prove the. existence, Jf such· a 'vvi-ilw
<: _1:.-<•itA- ?.e. ·J;>rir1a=:-y, Oour.t the, a;,JpC11£mt called heir hus'.band to
support her claim. Hor husband (PW2} iri fact stato_d that the piece
of land had been cul · ;-i-yatcd by hir.1 for his mother in law when she wa
alive and that tho- plaintiff had lantod thereon p:cnancnt crops
cocoa, - : ·
such as {. _ '.. bananas, branecs and pawpaws.
The defendant, novv respondent, resisted the cla\m first on
the grounds that thG pioco of land had not been gi vQr.· to thothe
of the appellant and su condly on tho [srounds that t,i-,, was allocated
to him by the Village Development Comr:u ttee.
\
\
.::-. ..
The Primary Court whi'6h had''tho advantage of visiting the.piece
of land dismissed. tho sui -Jl18iri,ly b0causo. it was found thGt the land
in question .coμld not hc:ive boon inl1eri tcd by tho· a
1
} Such cro:Js would
be- subject t·o inhcri tm1co. al.one with tho land by a· male member of
the clan. In this case, it wns th'e r·col1Gnt who is
. ,.
: ' ....... · ·.. .. ,, ... •, - .
a married w0t"l:ln \vie.tlwr ·or not it was clan lnnd. · Also the Primary
. .• . .. .
Court found 'that if over tho appellant planted any p-erLlnnent crops
rmr,,r i c d
before she r;ot ·· '' 1... those -drdps wore 1Sl::intcd for her parents and
' ... ·' ;';', \ ' .
could not bo clnimocl by her after scttne; □ orricdpondcnt 0
........ : ~ ... .• 1t CHUA
.. ' JUDGE
:,::.~ .20/~/90.
·'
.r-. :· . ' ;J : .... ' '
The District Court· op a.pp0·:.J).-ugrocd with the findings of the
Primary. Court. I find no reason to differ from both d"o:~~-- :;nd.
I .
j; accordingly dismiss this appeal with costs.- ,,:r;::. · ·,'i .f
f
..... . ..
·· i·.,·
. ' ---,;~~~•.•.
/.
·,.
,,,
.·.
At Mbeya JUDGE
20/9/90·.
holding brief of Mr. Mwakilasa. /
. ,.;,
. --- ...
, i'---·.
L