Munga v. Zuberi (PC) Civ. App. 46-A-71; 28/6/71; Kwikima Ag. J.

Munga v. Zuberi (PC) Civ. App. 46-A-71; 28/6/71; Kwikima Ag. J.

The appellant sued the respondent for a piece of land contending that he was occupying with the blessing of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Tanganyika. There was evidence that the land which a one time had been allocated to the mission had been abandoned by the mission and re-allocated to the respondent by the Village Development Committee.

Held: (1) “This court has repeatedly upheld allocations by chiefs as opposed to subsequent allocation by local authorities (Simeon Osita v. Adrianus Serere 1968 H. C. D. 21, Lucas Masirori Kateti v. Oloo Sekege 1968 H. C. D. 11). But in this case the appellant failed to show a better claim to the land. He was not representing the parish as he claimed. Otherwise he would have brought forward evidence to that effect. Moreover parts of the land originally occupied by the parish were reallocated to the villagers, one of whom was the respondent. It was only after this reallocation that the appellant sought to occupy on behalf of the parish whose occupation had been terminated when they abandoned the land for 10 years with the result that the VDC reallocated it. The reasoning of the primary court could not have been in accordance with the law as both parties were personally seeking to occupy. There was no shred of evidence that the appellant represented any group of people. If he did, this group and the respondent an individual. The respondent was the descendant of the original occupiers and in recognition of this fact the VDC reallocated him the

            disputed land.” (2) “The decision of the District Court was more in accord with justice than that of the primary court in that it recognised the need for the appellant to establish a better title to the land. In view of the fact that he did not provide any evidence to show title let alone better title, he could not be held to be in lawful occupation,. Accordingly this appeal fails with costs. The respondent is to occupy the disputed land provided that he shall compensate the appellant for any perennial crops which the appellant may have planted on the land.”