Kitmbi v. Makambi (PC) Civ. App. 17-Dodoma-71: 23/2/72; Kwikima, Ag. J.

 

Kitmbi v. Makambi (PC) Civ. App. 17-Dodoma-71: 23/2/72; Kwikima, Ag. J.

The respondent unsuccessfully sought to stop the appellant planting crops on what he claimed to be the land he had been allocated in accordance with the customs of the tribe of the parties i.e. Wapangwa. On appeal the District court gave judgment n his favour. The appellant in the High Court pleaded the National Policy and claimed that he is entitled to cultivate the disputed land because the respondent has not been developing it. Instead, he as just let it stand idle. In his opinion, therefore, the appellant fees justified in occupying idle land even without consulting the owner or the land-allocating authority.

            Held: (1) “The ruling that the appellant should take the land was based not on law but on the policy that no one can legitimately claim land unless he develops it or otherwise effectively occupies it.” The assessors who sat with the appeal magistrate sided with the respondent whom the trial court had found to have had prior title to the disputed land. The tables were then turned on the appellant.” (2) “Like the learned trial magistrate, I appreciate that land should not be left to lie idle and fallow simply because there is someone claiming possession. Incidentally the National Policy on land is that the present generation holds it in trust for their descendants. There is therefore no land ownership here. Instead, individuals or groups are allowed to take possession and occupy on condition that their occupation should be effective and that they should develop the land they possess. This however does not mean that people can indiscriminately occupy any piece of land they find lying idle as the appellant did in this case. The Government has designated some authorities to allocate land. Only by the permission and/or directions of these authorities can anyone claim to have lawfully acquired a plot. The Government does not certainly intend that people shall go about grabbing idle land. Otherwise conflicts such as the present one would be legion. Our peace and harmony would be in jeopardy if acts such as the appellant’s were suffered.” (3) “Whereas the respondent has shown that he was lawfully allocated the disputed plot, and that the allocation was made to him many years before the appellant chose to intrude, the appellant entered unlawfully without seeking the respondent’s permission or the permission of the land allocation authority. In appealing to this court he is inviting it to legalize his unlawful and high-handed act. Political considerations apart, the appellant seems to have a nagging feeling against the respondent who was formerly a sub chief. Unfortunately courts of law do not base their decisions on political trends which may be in vogue at any particular time. There are definite laws and rules which the party has set down for courts to follow in resolving disputes. Courts would do well to confine themselves to their will defined terms of reference i.e. the laws of the Nation. The trial court accepted the respondent’s contention that he had prior title to the land which he cleared and broke. The appellant did not seek or obtain leave to enter the land. His entry was therefore unlawful and even politics would not condone his act. (4)Appeal dismissed.