Kalumuna v. Mukandala (PC) Civ. App. 91-M-70; 5/11/70; Mnzavas Ag. J.

 Kalumuna v. Mukandala  (PC) Civ. App. 91-M-70; 5/11/70;    Mnzavas Ag. J.

       The respondent sued the appellant for a piece of land.  The land had been inherited by the respondent together with her brother and other sisters. The appellant alleged that the brother had sold the land to him for Shs.3, 900/= which had already been paid. The respondent’s contention was that her brother had sold only his portion of the land and that this sale did not include her portion. The Primary court found that the brother had sold the whole shamba. The District Court reversed.

        Held:  (1) “From the evidence I think there was sufficient material entitling the primary court magistrate to come to the decision he did. That Leonard sold the whole shamba to appellant is evident from the receipts– Exhibits A to D produced to court by the appellant. In these receipts Leonard acknowledges receipt of a total of Shs.3, 900/= as price of the shamba to appellant.” (2) The absence of the respondent during the sale of the shamba does not in this case invalidate the sale. However, the respondent is under section 570 – Customary Law of the Haya   Tribe by CORY   & HARTNOLL, allowed to prove that she was not a party to the sale.  If she takes this course and proves to the court that she was not a party to the sale, she will be allowed to claim the whole land if she can pay the sum his brother rose from Francis.  (3)  Appeal allowed.