Ntiyahela Boneka v. Kijiji Cha Ujamaa Mutala (compensation for his piece of land)

Ntiyahela Boneka v. Kijiji Cha Ujamaa Mutala

High Court (Chipeta J.)

Constitutional Law-acquisition of individual land-compensation- strict adherence by authorities to law and Constitution required- Constitution 1977 as amended by s. 23(3)

The appellant sued the respondents, Mutala Ujamaa Village for shs. 14,000/= being compensation for his piece of land of ten acres that the respondents nationalized or unilaterally took over.  The court of first instance of Kasulu Primary Court at Kasengezi decided in favor of the appellant and assessed his compensation at shs. 9,328/=.  The respondents successfully appealed to the District Court whereupon the appellant lodged this appeal to the High Court. 

The undisputed evidence of the appellant was that in or about the year 1974, during the movement of people into planned villages, the authorities measured 10 acres of virgin land and authorized the appellant to develop the same for his own use.  The appellant embarked on developing the land as a shamba, by clearing the bush.  By 1978, he had 477 banana trees and seasonal crops.

In October 1981, the respondents moved onto the shamba and ordered the appellant to vacate.  They claimed that they had “nationalized” it on the grounds of newly drawn boundaries between the appellant’s village of Kisengezi and the respondents’ village of Mutala.  The respondents refused a demand to pay compensation to the appellant for his crops, instead ordering that he remove his crops from the shamba.  The shamba was subsequently divided into plots that were allocated to individuals.  The appellant then sued the respondents.

The District Court which heard the respondents appeal appeared to have accepted the findings of fact by the trial Court that the appellant cleared the land when it was virgin and planted inter alia 477 banana trees and cultivated it for his needs for many years before eviction. It nevertheless allowed the appeal on the ground that the appellant had failed to remove the banana trees when ordered to do so by the respondents.

The issue in all the courts was whether the appellant was entitled to compensation in those circumstances.

HELD: 1. No seizure of individual property should be carried out in the absence of an enabling law and without compensation.  A person is entitled to compensation for improvements effected on land provided that at the time of carrying out such improvements, he had apparent justification for doing so. Authorities involved in decision- making regarding acquisition of land of individuals lawfully owned should strictly adhere to the provisions of the Constitution 1977 as amended, which is the supreme law of the land, to ensure peace and harmony in society. 

Appeal allowed.  Judgment of District Court set aside and that of Primary Court restored.  Costs to appellant in this court and courts below.

Legislation considered:

The Constitution 1977 as amended up to 1985, Section 23(2)

Cases considered:

1.    Alli Mangosongo v. Chrispina Magenje [1977] LRT n.3

2.    Lalata Msangawale v. Henry Mwamlima [1979] LRT n.3

Other materials considered:

        Freedom and Unity/Uhuru na Umoja