Kamugisha v. Kibuka (PC) Civ. App. 133-M-70; 1/1/71; Mnzavas Ag. J.

 Kamugisha v. Kibuka (PC) Civ. App. 133-M-70; 1/1/71; Mnzavas Ag. J.

            The appellant blocked a foot-path which runs over his shamba and which had been in use for over forty years. The respondent being   one of the villagers who was inconvenienced obtained an order from the cell-leaders compelling the appellant to reopen the path. The order was confirmed by the primary and district courts.

            Held:  (1) “Such a path is called   ‘OMUHANDA’ in Kihaya. According to Haya Customary Law it would appear that if such a path passes through private land, as it is in this case, the owner of the land may not close the path unless he provides an alternative route at his own expenses – see CORY & HARTNOLL, CUSTOMARY LAW OF THE HAYA TRIBE Paragraph 712.  From the evidence the appellant closed the foot-path to the river before providing an alternative route and as such his act was clearly inconsistent with the established Haya Customary Law.”  (2) Appeal dismissed.