Thadeus Chach v. Robi Mkiba (PC) Civ. App. 270-M-69; 23/1/70; Kimicha J.
The appellant had applied to the V.D.C. who allocated him a piece of land which he claimed belonged to nobody and was undeveloped. There was evidence that the land was undeveloped and was planted with cassava, bababas, Arabica Coffee and some eucalyptus trees by Robi after he learnt of is reallocation to the appellant. However, the magistrate ascertained that the land in question had in fact been the subject of dispute between Robi and others in a previous civil case. The District Court decides that Robi (the present respondent) could not be deprived of land he had held for many years under customary land tenure.
Held: (1) “It appears from the facts as recorded by the district court based on the evidence of witnesses and on the magistrate’s visit to the land in dispute that the land was allocated by the V.D.C. to the appellant in this court when they knew that the respondent in this Court exercised right of ownership over it recognized under customary law.” (2) “There is no evidence to show that Robi committed acts which amounted to waiver of his rights over the land. He resisted the V. D. C.’s action by planting permanent trees on it and he has alleged in this Court that he was locked up for a number of days by the then Area Commissioner for refusing to agree to the alienation of his land.” (3) “The district magistrate was, after inspecting the land; satisfied that it was the subject of litigation between Robi and his neighbour Mbanda long before it was allocated to the appellant and judgment was given for Robi.” (4) “It is clear from the above facts that the V.D.C. acted above their powers in allocating the land in dispute to the appellant in contravention of Robi’s undisputed right over it.” (5) Appeal dismissed.
0 Comments
PLACE YOUR COMMENT HERE
WARNING: DO NOT USE ABUSIVE LANGUAGE BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW.
THE COMMENTS OF OUR READERS IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY.