africa.law — Free African Legal Information

Judgment

IN THE HIGH GOURT OF TANZNIA AT MANZ1 APPILLATE JURISDICTION (from the deci c ° c'i 2 sba at &koba in Civil Appeal No. 161 of .1980 - Before H. S. K abibi t 4 sq. 9 3enior District Magistrate and BuhendAngabo Primary Court Original Civil Case No.35/ 80 ) PAUIO BUB.LWL.. . 00060 . .. . .. . . •.. . . . .. 000 . . . . .. .. •. 0060 sAP? AIIJLANT

i1RSUS P.TRO BUBi1LWhL. .. ..... .. . .. ... . . •. . . •. . . . . . •.. .. . . .... . .. SRiSPONDENT XPALILAL J,k The Parties to this suit are brothers, sota of one 8uberwa who is now dead.. Before his death, bu.berwa divided his property among his frur sons - the respondent was the main heir. The rest of the shambas were divided, between the appellant paulo Buberwa, another brother Laurian and their sister. However Laurian was not in the country, be had disappeared for a long time and was suspected to be in Uganda. Buborwa therefore acocrding to the viill ordered Laurian's share of the shamba to be entrusted to his grandson one Method the re5pndent$ eon. He ordered that )iethbd look aftor the shamba in Laurian's absence and hand it to him on his return, but that if Laurian failed to return then that portion shculd• vest in Uethod.. The respondent told the Primary Court at Buhend.angabo that contrary to this arrangement, the appellant entered Taurjan's share of the shamba under Method's care and claimed it for his uWU, He therefore aSked the court to order the appellant out of Laurian' shamba and return it to Method in accordance with the Will. ............ The appellant resisted the claim saying that he did not3nter into Laurian's property but that he was occupying his own pazt of Laiàn'a property which was given to him by the clan after they had taken away the care of Laaurian's shamba from Method. both the Primr.y and district courts found for the respondent. They held that the appellant hat rSmovod bó boundarias as fixed by the clan in the terms of the Will to whioh he 0a8 himself tne signatory. . but I think all this was irrelevant. The main point in the -respondent's claim was that the appellant had taken over Lauriane' shamba whih was under the oustody of one Method. The question is undr what titie was the respondent clairnin,, prrperty on behalf of Method? Method himself did not even give evidence at the trial, The fect tnt bhs esiident is Method's fther ddtb not éiim igh •.... . . •. ./2.
2 property. as Iviethod himself does not appear tohave been aggrieved by any conduot of the appellant no one else should without Method's authority come forward and olirn rights for him. For these reasons the respondent had no right to bring this action either onhis own.behalf or on behal.f of Method. The Primary Court should have dismissed his claim on this basis. For these reasons as the respondent had no locus standi in the Primary Gourt, this appeal is allowed with costs. The action if there is any cause for itshou.ld be brought by iethod himself. a. --
0 \• . \ L . LILA ,. FBI OCQ 1.982 JUDGE I c

Judgment

i1RSUS P.TRO BUBi1LWhL. .. ..... .. . .. ... . . •. . . •. . . . . . •.. .. . . .... . .. SRiSPONDENT XPALILAL J,k The Parties to this suit are brothers, sota of one 8uberwa who is now dead.. Before his death, bu.berwa divided his property among his frur sons - the respondent was the main heir. The rest of the shambas were divided, between the appellant paulo Buberwa, another brother Laurian and their sister. However Laurian was not in the country, be had disappeared for a long time and was suspected to be in Uganda. Buborwa therefore acocrding to the viill ordered Laurian's share of the shamba to be entrusted to his grandson one Method the re5pndent$ eon. He ordered that )iethbd look aftor the shamba in Laurian's absence and hand it to him on his return, but that if Laurian failed to return then that portion shculd• vest in Uethod.. The respondent told the Primary Court at Buhend.angabo that contrary to this arrangement, the appellant entered Taurjan's share of the shamba under Method's care and claimed it for his uWU, He therefore aSked the court to order the appellant out of Laurian' shamba and return it to Method in accordance with the Will. ............ The appellant resisted the claim saying that he did not3nter into Laurian's property but that he was occupying his own pazt of Laiàn'a property which was given to him by the clan after they had taken away the care of Laaurian's shamba from Method. both the Primr.y and district courts found for the respondent. They held that the appellant hat rSmovod bó boundarias as fixed by the clan in the terms of the Will to whioh he 0a8 himself tne signatory. . but I think all this was irrelevant. The main point in the -respondent's claim was that the appellant had taken over Lauriane' shamba whih was under the oustody of one Method. The question is undr what titie was the respondent clairnin,, prrperty on behalf of Method? Method himself did not even give evidence at the trial, The fect tnt bhs esiident is Method's fther ddtb not éiim igh •.... . . •. ./2.
2 property. as Iviethod himself does not appear tohave been aggrieved by any conduot of the appellant no one else should without Method's authority come forward and olirn rights for him. For these reasons the respondent had no right to bring this action either onhis own.behalf or on behal.f of Method. The Primary Court should have dismissed his claim on this basis. For these reasons as the respondent had no locus standi in the Primary Gourt, this appeal is allowed with costs. The action if there is any cause for itshou.ld be brought by iethod himself. a. --
0 \• . \ L . LILA ,. FBI OCQ 1.982 JUDGE I c

Paulo Bubelwa vs Petro Bubelwa (PC Civil Appeal No. 151 of 1981) [1982] TZHC 574 (22 October 1982)

Judgment

Discussion

Paulo Bubelwa vs Petro Bubelwa (PC Civil Appeal No. 151 of 1981) [1982] TZHC 574 (22 October 1982)

Judgment

Discussion