I ' ' i' I ! IN THE HIGH COURT- OF TJNZ.lNIL •·· JT· MBEYJI. -=-:-,._~. I ---

• (DC) CIVIL 11.PPEJ.L N0.4 OF 1988 ( 1crom the dccj:sion of the Diiot Court of Rungwe Distric at Tukuyti in Civil Gase No.8 of 1984 ';-Bo fore: G.B~ Mwakaturubul.a, District :Magistrate) 11.LBER.T w;rsTON JYIWJ.IPUNGU O • t t •.••. • t O t 4 fl t o t e o • o • o t o e • 8 t e e O o • e .APPETuLtlN1 ' versus r.:na,Tl[ Wn CHJ.IvIL CHJ~ USHIRIKJ. WA KILABU . j CHA . J 'OM~: KA VETERE JUU TUKUYU ••• , •••••••••••••••• - ••• ., • :-BESPONUl'f.l : ·~ t;:- JUDGMENT -........ . ---- Tho ap32<q.lnnt Jlber,- Weston IIwaipungu filod a EiJ.i t in the District Court· o:f Runc;we at Tulru.yu ac;ainst the VfMwoycki ti wa Cham2! r <>-ha Usr.ci.rika wa· K_ilabu cha Ponip.o Kawotere Juu Tukuyμ. 11 for a. dclearati.ol'i that :1 piece of 11.~.plot ·'in Tukuyu town beloncs to, him and for an-· '• '") - . ' ' .. ~:-, injunetion aeairis-t the defendant from further usino; it to carry on

its business" I-IG lost the suit ancl'was condormod to iose his ('".osts.

__ ;.· . He felt· ageriovod by that docisi6n an~ tough his adi"Ooatee TukU.njo'bf\ I • and' do. appealed. to this court,. At tho hearing of thls appeal he wa9 / ' represcmtod by Mr. Tukunjobs., loamed counsel anc1 the ·respondent was ·" rep:cesontod by Mr .rJwakilasa, loamed counsel. whQ also roproscnted him durinG the trial. The appollcnt has boon cqntoncl.inc :that hb · O'I/VllS a plot number 71 ., . . · . .- Block 'F" alones IC:iwira Ron·d in Tukuyu to,ymship. He further contends . . that in 1977 tho c1ofond:ant and a c;roup o-f other women ·"oorr0wod 11 .. ~ tho plot fror.1 hL1 2ncl built a p0i:1bo shop bu.ildine; on it. .?In 'both, ,. July and O,ctobor, 1984 hQ soucht to evict tho defendant and her 'group from tho plot but the attoi:1pt was unau.ooessful. Ue filed the

sit in the DistriC{ iJo\l.;t; I Tho trial :bitric-u Cour ... ool<! t.ht :he a:ppollM"ti Md :raui)-d YC p ovo his oCrshiJi of ··th~ .p,lpt ,and.found as a fact that it beloge .. . ;---- :-.~ . . .: .. ,,. . . : .' ·) · .. · .. . . . . . . . . . t tho do f_e:hclf:i1it fu-ld: 1 '1q,~ gr;o_P, it ha'ving • ••.•'• •:)_> :"::-,, ,: 1 .. •• ' ••• \h boon Given to them by o o ll.lr,ert Swqb,;:r}fiwsasu. ; .•. ·,,>: _ •. , ,, ·,• • '' . . t ~ . . " : - ;.> _ _ ·.)H -tp.e · lfo:arh(3 ·of tho appea_J,. bo.t.h counse:t,. for the. appeJ.laAt. and fjr :the re-sjondent :submi tt;a.'t.,· ,1:liit tJ:/ · ciif:fo;ont reasons• th~~ - -le J'l.p.p0al-- be ·;;llowoci •... I '1hefe '. was evidence · du:rinc the trial that · in 1957 one Wetol\ Mwaipbn~~ the. father of' the i'ta:p!)o°ilant, obtainel a rieht of 1:i 1 1· o.bcuJ,acy over 1'ho pJ.p.t in dis;,uto fo'x· three years, Some reoe«, ';,\i .. .: ':Were ri1roduccd a~- ~~~i bi is. to show that Weston Jl:'IwJpungu ·paid ial} ) . I : ...... ·· . I .. - . . ·· I . . . rent/ror that plot_.sice 15J54J'·'·:· !twas ..qi°:::tha:t:wcsto:ri Mwa,.i_pu.ngt. ,F has f:ltnoe dietl but there· was'' ho <~~de~.c~ if by 19;~ on· 1977 or - i· ; . • ... . • -~ ,. .: . { ' 1••• ·,.,,,. ~ '('",' .r\••:.: • • " " .. .· I • i ' 1 ·; 1978 ·when tho de fondant's grou:J .erected the pombq· shop ei thr Weston Mwaipui1c,cu or.- the a1p~llo.~t had any local 1 i-t1e to it. ·1J&et}apptt.llant 1 Jroduced in evidence a copy o: a letter_ to the ' •· . ,· ~ Intern?,-1 :_Revenue O:ffic/rp '.J:ukuru froT;1 tho Distri;ct hand Officer

r-' . ,, ,_~- ,:.. :,.., ' . . .: ,f - 1 . \ 
, r~lating to tho plot i; disp~to, No<) 71 BLOCK 'F1 ~ It sa:..d that 
, ~~ ·0 1 
. . ,\·. . :- ': _:·· :,..:: ... · : \; .. 
a short tet.m Right of Occupancy ovor that.· plot t'is .. to be granted,_. 
. .· . . ·y ' 
to Jhe_appellant and that the 
land rent from tho appellant. 
'( -· 
Internal Revohuq'·Qffice; dou\d accept 
. •. . .• C ,-,f~, \, 
Indo.ed the.re<was s'orh?cl eviden'c~ that 
(·, ... ., .. 
the. appellant paicl such rent for 
and 1/7/84 to 30/6/85~ '··But tho 
th:, :pe!'iods i/ 4/8J to 30/6/84, 
. 1,. ·,. . 1' 
su:pp~~d ~orl ~-- Riesht of )-ccu~-- 
. ' 
p:ancy doos not appoar ti) ha~o bo~n_ gr~nwa. ;:t;o;t-b.a appaliari:t ~d n~ 
. . ·-·- . I \ 
certificate of., Occupancy wa~ produced to oo~ by .llim to show 
that ho infact acquirBd any loc;al titlQ ovor ·th9'. .pl9t as at tho 
time ho filed tho .suit~·· :,.f '\r,outa: thorofo.ro agro.o vvi th th.c trial 
. . : ~·· .:· .· .. '. . . . . ';- '" ,• . 
the plot~,

r On the other hand, d5.d tho r0s.pondcnt provo any ti tlo ovor·-~ 
• t 
;t. 
pJ.o:t-? For one thing tho res-pondont "Mwonyckiti"and her Us.hi.i-ika 
were ot a loc;nl enti'c;f:-: capable of owninB property (o.- 0wn to be 
sued or that matter). Tho Mwcmyoki ti and her Vlashirika were no~ 
a reg stored partnership or OrGnnisation o!j at lcastJthore was n~; 
ovid. cc that they wore. Their witness Albert Swobo Mwansasu c\Pa,; 
/ he )lOt 
from a mote verbal claimldido.)roduco any pr'oof that he had at any 
~ime o-wne tho p1ot in dispute. Consequently 
1 
he could no~ have 
passed a 
I 
on..-o:x:istent ti ble to the respondent~- It follows that 
I . 
the :i,esp~~ent too had no ownership of the plot, even if it we~e 
assumed t. t sho and her Washirika coulq. have owned propert~, 
I 
I 
1 t allow tho api,cal by quashin3 thaj par-Ii of the t,we, , 
court ju gmont .which adjud,~ed, tho, r,9spppdp_nt an¢t b~.r, Us_b,ir.ika-.iio ._ 
• • • ~ • • • • c -· _: '" • • • L • <.t •.. • .. 1' ..,. •. ..,l. · • ,1 • ' ,. ~ .: ... 
l 
ovp;n:~~'..i;V~-· o,f tho ?l_vt,, . Tl1=~ .. Pl?t i,$. do.c.lar.ed ?u]~J..ic -~~-Pid~J.":t.ai.r, :.:_,. 
' I 
l'}". •.·re)'. 
·',. _ A~ th:~. appol~ar~t ,!1as. ~-UC~,?:Of~.°.q:_:o~l:'.(_,~)a~:~.ollr i:f,;~hi~ . ., ~P~a\ 
r 
tho.ap:Qallant 
• •• ',i • 
is,. ;C~raptc,d h~J._f j;~'l9~ i_~p.[:lt,s .; of th~~i _a1?Prr' a..L~:.1-.., Y;· "', :, 1 
j I 
' . I 
. 1·:'.=•·'. . •., ,:, ,. 'N .' :.~ · :n.t ·,. h"t 
"v 
. '.~ . 
• " ;,; • ~· "V 
i~i :~,,: •. ~:~1~"·-~1;_,{.r.·L~. i· ,,. 
J.A. Wiroso . 
,. - ~. + L . 
... L ·. fi,o J .• ~ ... , ' 
JUDGE 
" 
1 
JVIr-.. Mwakilasa .for tho Rcs:,onclcmt o 
• . J j~ ~\~11- •. 
JAM/ATM'limatt 
',. 
..,