Issa Rashid vs Mfaume Ally ((PC) Civil Appeal No. 50 of 1985) [1985] TZHC 75 (7 December 1985)

(PC) CIVIL JJ??:r.:::·.L r,rn. 50 CF 1985 (Fron the decision of the iJiotrict Court of Kilosa at Masanze in Civil lipi.)eal lTo,10 of 1985) ISSA RLSEI1) I ' .••• " ' •• C • • • • • • • • • • • • • • APPELT !:.NT versus Tu!FJ:.UT./IB JtLLY • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,, 0 0 0 • e O • 0 0 O O • 0 RESPONDENT BA.HP.TI J,, This is a second o.),_,oo.l. The ,.Jpello.nt rn:s the defendant in the trial court while the reff-onJent w::-.s the plaintiff. Tho clnir:i in the Prinary Court wns for c. :)iece of lend· which the rcs:;iondent cloioed thet the appellant had entered u~,on 8 ncl to.ken away~ Tl+e Prinary Court decided against the reo.pondent who o.; 1 )enled to the District Court. The District Court decided in fo.vour of -::·_1::' respondent. Hence i his appea:., now to this court. The evidence adduced in the trinl court in support of the olnin wns that the responclent/plc.intiff hr.,s a shnrJ.ba nex-; to the shnnba of the appellant/defendant. The o.ppellnnt/c1efcndnnt entered o,bout'·! 1 hUf· ·Atl acre in width o.nd one r.,c:rc L1 J.01 0 tbY into the land of the respondent/' plaintiff. It is not clc;:r- to nc -.1h,.t this ex.::,,ctly neens. The swwuli used in the record of tl:.e :, 1 rirnry 1 .Jotut rends thus: "Eneo .aliloi:ngilio. uc~~iwc. ni !:insi chn ½ elro U'.)nnn m urefu unnlroribin eko.ri uojo? ,. Anywny whnt is cerk,in !'lore i::i thnt the reaponclent/plnintiff wcs asserting tho.t the c-,ppell:::nt/dofoYi(k.nt entered o.nd took part of his sbnobn .(plaintiff's ) • As c. result of this oncr.00_1 .hi:ient the respondent/ plaintif referred the no.ttur to th8 villnge nuthcti ties and eventually to the Prinnry Court. The rosi;ondent/pJ.o.intiff Dl -Lntc,ined in cross exnninntion that the disputed Jortion toc;ether wi· .:.1 the rest of his sha.mbn had been irJ:teri tod by hin fron his lo.te fr. ;her and thc.t nt one tine he hnd given '.le.rt ·Jf t1is shnnbo. to one 1Iz0e Alli for temporal use. There was evidence fron Asr.iin K..'1.pilir.Jn who r.verred that she hnd a husband now deceased who hc.d been Biven the shJba in dispute by the father of the plaintiff to cul ti v::t8 nnc1 that this husbnnd returned the shnnbn to the plaintiff when hC:! could no lcne;er cultivate :i;~, She put the area on which the defendant hnd encroached tofnbout an ccre,, be •.. " ...• /2.

• 2 - There wns yet another pieqe ofevidence fror:i Kolonboni S:t.mon'Who _testified thnt in 1982 he got conpla.ints fron the pla.:i.ntiff obout the. encroacbJ:;ient of the defendant over the plaintiff's lnnd, '.Ilhen there wo.s some discussion of the lJ.nttc:i:- o.n:1 itrto.s decEed to ::?lnnt bata,pa. plantations to mrk the boundary of the lo.nds of the disputo.nts, This witness also snid tho. t there was a. wild fig tree ns the rir.rk shov1il1g the boundary which tree wo.s nowdeep into the sho.nbnof the defendo.nt, Thela.st witness wns Horun ,·nili who clid notknow exa.otly how f the defendnnt ha(1 gone into the plcdntiff 1 s land. But. this witness. confirmed thnt the piece of lnnd in dispute wa.s of the plaintiff and. thnt the boundary between the lands of the disputnnts we.a o. wild fig tree o.nd bana.na plnntntionso The defence of the defendant wa.s thnt thcdjsputed lnnd was his, having inherited it fron his fo.ther. The defendcit conceded in cross-exo.mina.tion tha.t ,\lly Mzee now deceased ha/ clo.ined tho.it the defendant ha.d gone beyond the boundary of hislon( out the def.endant claimed that what hefouncl in thnt · aren. wns just rush which he (:lea:.t'ed to get rid of uestl"l;;.cti~.--'.'1 "-l':J.Llnls. It wouldnpper r that the defendont wo.s using thennnes 1i.lli Mzee and Mzee :1.11i inter, .. :meeably to mean the. some person. There WllS a witness ,'.hmn.c1 Hnssnni foi·· tho l )fencbnt who te&t:ti'1ed thnt h~ had D. sho..oba next. to the defendant I~ shcr: 1 x.1. o.nd that he had .'' been given "!;ho.t si10.nbn by t}"e defendmit roid that· h~ knew nothing a~;; . . the claim of the· pla.intiff over" the disputed lo.nC:. Fina.lly there wns Mohnoed f.'.izee who testific:l thn.'t one Alli Sefu ho.d lent hitl a.. shmabn near: the defendant rs shQJD.b~ nnd tho.ti he did nol lcnow anything a.bout the. cinim of . tho plo.futiff •.. The Pritnary Court went to view the lnnci in :lispute o.nd ; a. sketeh plan wo.s drown. The sketch plan shows the· disput, ,d lnnd. Which is o.boU'tt 45 ynrds by 60 ynrds. Tho dispute~ la.nd is shovn to contain sugv.rrne- plo.ntntions o:f the defendant. There nre nlso tr 9bo,no.no, _pJ.anto.t;Lons : shwn which the pla.intiff clnined to' be the bouni :,,ry . ·of. -the shamba& ot the parties. The .assessors foundthe plnintiff 1 s evic1e:.- :;e not weighty be,ause. he did not shovt any pernnnerit crops a.nd beca.usc hehocJ. been lo.te to brSllg his claim. On the other ho.nd they foundthe de:enda.nt hod shown the crops which he hnc1 pln1ted 'thre namely ti.1e Sl: -rcnne. plantations w shwed tho.t hey were there for nt least 7 yen,. The Primry Co'UX!tt, l'Io.gistrote nereed 'with the assessors, The District Court fbundthe evidence o:' t:1e plc.inti.ff to be the more wighty than the de:f:'endnnt Is evidence;,. ~:heDist'ridt ·eourt also found the sketch pla.rt unreliable because of the b..'lJ.1.D.llD. plantation 1n the middle·ofthe disputed nreo.. •' .I..

, ,) .. J Considerinc t~:i.o st:.·'-' :i.·. t~~o c.. Yi,10:1(;e; in this nppenl it is clen:r thnt the evidence t:a-t10 C, :;0 O:i. tl:0 :'ws: . ..;!'.~~:c.t/Jinlntiff 1s oore ooeent • thon thnt of the np:;:,ollL:.nt/-' .::f0:.L'.c-.1c.t, Thor..; wc:ro at lonst 4 witnesses for the responc1Gnt/pkintiff who e,o.vo ovijcY.lco to show tho.t the shm:1bn in dis;;>ute. belon:;ed to t> :c::s:-,nJont/j;lo.inti:ff. They pointed out thnt the bo:l-ndsry _<?Onsisted. sf bc.110.1-: ,lnn·.:;o.tions plnnted nfte:r. te natter had been resolved between the Firiu.:;. Pl:--_j_ntil:':· Is witness Kolc;_1bnhi Sinon told ~ • 4 • '\he· trial. court how ·the boun :iry ,1eo 11ccc o.:rter the dispute }ina been -e·o1vea:· He o.lso told tl:::1 trio.l c:,ourt c,bout the wilc1 fiG tree us being .. . . the min nork to shovi tho h-1i..:i:.dr1ry. But it :i,.s surprisinc thnt the sketch:.,p:l,am, ·aoas 11ot Shorr 1/1:: 0 ':: t;1is treo is. I therefore . smre the views :of the· i~~rnoc.1 b:i.st:r.i.c•~ r .. ci::::t1°c.to tl1r:t t.tis ske~h plo.n 1 should not be relied upon becc.Li;c ::..t iK. .. ::i<J j_ncorroct. v\l}}ct do we h,,ve on th.1 sj.o of tho np:::iollnnt/ ..::fead::,nt by wny of l. 1. : .. ...J '• •, ~ , , ; - ... • shnnbo,Ll of theirs et t;1e :--.:. :- .• ,..\ . . .,. .-- t •' .. . . e.o .. by other poqple tu cul ·;iv. t , . . ·. .,.,.,, . "'· - . on (1. < • ·.,. ~ ;tp.~~ed t4ey .. , ......... d:itl ·riot .(!lufu .tto knov, !uc.h : bout :foo boundc::d:es ,bl cwen .the .<lisputnnte;. ---. I ccinnot'° se the;.of0r0 or: t:is ovLer:.ce 110,;; th- Pr~.-\ty 'cou;t u1.d have - clc.i~.lil18 j.11 his -.:vi<1ence ,thnt t.he , . , . e ... ... . . ,.1.. • • ... . ,.: ... ~· it. His enrlier . ,·- ·, . contrn<try. ., , ;J;iik,_e., the District Comt I i'ir.<: .,, - ........... . . - .· t:--L t tho )l;. :c·cift hcil. cstobi}).cd . . . .., 4::;s c'.1s.~ on, :the bnl:--:,co of t.· ,0, ;7ro.pyi_t\es. -!- :;eref'?Ff: !inc~ , , !J,,- nett in -~~~s: r>.p:rieilil c.:..1c.1 1 disr.liss it. a.ccur::i ;J..3r with c9:3• i.·· ·-'~

• .-·: -· ., .... -·· ~ : ,,. . .. . - / - <-' . •. /4____...-;;:;'1:c' ·-· ··r- '
• .. ·-. - _., J;. TJ.!.IL·. TI . ,. . r: · JUJGE·. - 7/12/19G5 . '·" .. i; •., .. .··,... ; ~ .... - .... ~/4.

4 Court:- Judgr:1ent deliverocl ilc. u'.:>1.u·t in t'.bsence of the parties who failed to turn up oc 2;5/11/1:JC) ::-:s fiJrnd for delivery of judgwent, -··(::;;;_>. :: .... _ ✓ ,;:tr--~--:~;. A. BLBJ,TI ··\ DAR ES SLLlitM 7th Leceuber, 1985,