Sada v. Saada (PC) Civ. App. 43-D-71; Oct. 1971; Mwakasendo Ag. J.

Sada v. Saada (PC) Civ. App. 43-D-71; Oct. 1971; Mwakasendo Ag. J.

The appellant and respondent were living in concubinage for a number of years. In 1966 the respondent bought a piece of land in the Mburahati area, Dar es Salaam, intending someday to build a house on it. In 1968 the appellant began building a house on the land. The material and labour was provided by him but the respondent contributed a share of the expenses for the doors and windows of the house. The respondent contended that the appellant built the house for her in consideration of her love and affection for him. Whilst he in turn claimed ownership of the house on the ground of his contribution in building it. The Magomeni Primary Court which heard the action found for the appellant. This decision was reversed on appeal in the District Court which held that the appellant built the house for the respondent in consideration of love and affection.

Held: (1) “Speaking for myself, I find it hard to discern any rationale behind the decision of the lower Courts, more so now at it must be apparently clear from a proper assessment of the facts and from the intention of the parties as can be properly inferred therefrom that the house was intended for the parties joint occupation or benefit. In my opinion the facts as I apprehend them clearly show that the parties built the house for their joint benefit. I would therefore decline to uphold any decision which aims at depriving one or the other party from enjoying the benefit of their joint labours.” (2) “The respondent in the course of this appeal told the Court that she would be quite prepared to allow the appellant to pull down his house and remove his materials from he plot, if he so wished. All she cared, so it seemed to me, was to be left free to deal with her land as she pleased. Appellant on his part was not adverse to this suggestion which I must confess I found very attractive at first. But on further reflection, I have come to the conclusion that adopting this solution would only bring untold hardship and suffering to more innocent people, the tenants of the house, who have nothing to do with the present dispute between the parties. I have accordingly devised a way out of the problem which I believe will obviate any future trouble between the parties. I believe too that this is the only way the peace and tranquility of the tenants of the house can be ensured. For this state of tranquility to be established in the house it is necessary that the title and ownership of the property must be in one and only one person. I would therefore grant the ownership of the house to the respondent subject to her refunding to the appellant the sum of Shs. 1,500/= which is would consider sufficient to compensate him for the loss in materials and labour expended in creating the house.”