AMANI RAJABU NJUMLA v THOMAS AMRI 1990 TLR 58 (HC)

 

AMANI RAJABU NJUMLA v THOMAS AMRI 1990 TLR 58 (HC)

Court High Court of Tanzania - Dar es Salaam

Judge Bahati J

12 July 1990

Flynote

B Land Law - Power of village government to allocate land - Status of land after

demise of the occupier.

-Headnote

In a suit before the trial Primary Court the respondent was found not to be entitled to

build on the appellant's C father's land. On appeal to the District Court it was held

that the respondent was so entitled because he had been given the plot on which he

built the house by the village authorities.

The High Court, on further appeal, found that the allocation of the disputed land to

the respondent was invalid and D allowed the appeal with costs.

Held: (i) The village government may allocate land to anyone. But that does not mean

that the village government has power to take away land from one person and give it

to another. The appellant and his relations are competent E to succeed to their late

father.

Case Information

Maira, for appellant

Marando, for respondent

[zJDz]Judgment

F Bahati, J.: The dispute in this case is whether the respondent was entitled to build

on the appellant's father's land. The Primary Court held that he was not entitled. But

the District Court held that he was entitled because he had been given the plot on

which he built the house by the village authorities.

G In his submission, Mr. Maira, learned counsel for the appellant, said that the

village government had no power to allocate land which is not vacant. In reply to

that, Mr. Marando, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the land had fallen

vacant after the appellant's father died and that the village government then allocated

it to the H respondent. Mr. Marando further submitted that the appellant should

have asserted ownership of his land against the village government and that the

appellant did not even have letters of administration to administer his father's estate.

He concluded that the proceedings in the Primary Court should be looked into as

they appear to be irregular I in view of the summing up made which is contrary to

government notice No.2 of 1988.

1990 TLR p59

In a further reply, Mr. Maira submitted that the land never became vacant upon the

demise of the appellant's father A and that the appellant was claiming as a successor

and that his title was not in dispute. With regard to GN. No.2 of 1988, Mr. Maira said

that the summing up did not occasion a failure of justice.

I accept the submission that the village government may allocate land to anyone. But

that does not mean that the B village government has power to taken away land

from one person and give it to another. Although Mr. Marando cited the Ujamaa

Village Act, he did not specify which provisions in the Act empowered the village

government to allocate land belonging to one person to another. C

Therefore prima facie the allocation of the land to the respondent was ultra vires and

therefore void. Secondly, there can be no questioning of the appellant's competence

and his relations to succeed their late father.

This was not in dispute in the courts below and it cannot be made an issue now. As

for the summing up which was D made in contravention of GN.2 of 1988, in view of

the fact that it did not occasion any failure of justice the irregularity is curable.

Appeal allowed. E

1990 TLR p59

F