view were points of law to be considered by the Court, we are satisfied that the learned judge was not wrong in certifying the two
points which he believed to be points of law, although not specifically applied for. In that respect, since there is leave and certificate,
we think that the requirement of section 5 (2) (c) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1979 were complied with and, therefore, we
hold that the appeal is properly before us.
We ro^ turn to the merits of the appeal. The appellant's memorandum of appeal has the following grounds:-
1.
Tnatthe learned judge erred in law in~nat" considering whether there was any evidence adduced to support and justify the decision
of the courts below that the appellant bought the "shamba" under dispute from the respondent.
2.
That the learned judge erred in law in not considering whether the appellant is entitled to compensation for the improvements he effected
on the "shamba" under dispute for the period he occupied it for cultivation purposes only.
7
3. Generally the learned judge erred in law in not satisfying himself to the propriety of the proceedings to the injury of the appellant.
\ ,
N In arguing the first ground of appeal Mr. Mnkonje, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that there was ample evidence at the
trial that the appellant purchased the shamba in dispute from Omar Kombo Mkadam and Vuai Rajabu Pandu (DW2) in 1987. By then the
respondent was away. When the respondent returned in 1990- hechaHenged tn^^:?^t^ea^' with other dan members. The appellant had-to buy it for the second time by paying the respondent shs, 250,000/=. He-said that
there was ample evidence to that effect at the trial from the appellant and his witnesses some of whum are the respondent's relatives.
It was his submission that the ieamed judge should have concurred with the courts below on this.
In arguing the second ground of appeal the learned counsel stated that the learned judge erred in ordering the respondent to compensate
the appellant for the improvements made basing on evaluation by a Government Valuer. He said that the learned judge should have ordered
the compensation to be assessed according to market value as provided for under section 51 (1) of the Transfer of
8
Property Ordinance, Cap .150. He said that evaluation by a Government Valuer would result in a less amount to be paid than by market
value which fluctuates according to demand.
\
,
In arguing the third ground of appeal the learned counsel stated that, since the respondent had testified that the land in dispute
belonged to him and his brother jointly, under the circumstances the learned judge erred when he held that there was no nosssity
of having a power of attorney from his brother without givrng:3iry reason for holding so.
The learned counsel also challenged the locus standi of the resporatert in instituting the suit. He said thHtrhe land in dispute belonged
to the respondent's late father. After his death the respondent did not show any certificate that he was appointed the administrator
of his father's estate or any cogent evidence that he inherited it. The learned counsel also challenged the procedure which was used
in accepting the respondent's "Warka" whereby the record is not clear as to how it was accepted as exhibit.
On his part the respondent denied to have sold the land in dispute to the appellant. He said that, had he sold it to him he
9
should have issued him with a "Warka". There is none. He said
further that he inherited the land from his father and that there were
only two heirs, that is, himself and Vuai Khamis Vuai who later died \ without leaving a wife or child. The respondent conceded that the
appellant had been in occupation of the land for a considerable time
whereby he planted fruit trees some of which were already mature
when he came back to the village around 1990. However he
objected to evaluation of compensation based on market value on
the ground that such evatuHnnn is nanreify made by GovOTiment
Valuers.
The question whether tne respondent sold the land in dispute to the appellant is a matter of fact which is subject to proof by evidence.
It is common ground that the appellant was the successful party in the Primary Court, District Court and Regional Court. Those courts
were satisfied with the evidence available that the respondent sold the land in dispute to the appellant. It is common knowledge
that a higher court will not normally interfere with a concurrent finding of fact of the courts below unless there are sufficient
grounds.
10
In the instant case, the High Court interfered with the concurrent findings of fact of the courts below. The crucial issue is
whether there were sufficient grounds which justified the High Court
\
^interfering with the findings.
The High Court interfered with the concurrent findings of fact of the courts below for the following reasons:-One, that the sale agreement between the appellant and Omar Kombo Mkadam and Vuai Rajabu Pandu was doubtful in view of the dates shown
thereat, and that the explanation on the ^ist i-epai icy in dates given by the appellant was not satisfactory. Two, that thersuirby the respondent was not time barred... Three, that the appellant failed to establish on balance of probability that he bought the shamba in dispute in view of some discrepancies
in the testimony of the appellant's witnesses, especially Vuai Rajabu Pandu (DW2), Simai Kombo (DW3) and Asha Chungu Bandala (DW4).
Four, that it was wrong to hold that the respondent had no locus standi merely because he had no power of attorney from his co-owner
Vuai Khamis Vuai.
11
We have carefully considered the reasons given by the learned judge. With due respect to the learned judge, we partly agree with him
and partly disagree with him. We agree with him in the following aspects:
First that the suit by the respondent was not time barred. We take the effective date to be when the appellant recognized the respondent
to be the owner of the land and paid him the purchase price of 200,000/=. This was after 1990 when the respondent rsurnad hone from
where he had been fur iudLiy years. Second, that the respondent had locus standi when he instituted the snfr, Bui even with these agreed, the same cannot justify interference
with the concurrent finding of the courts below. We do not agree with the learned judge on the other grounds in view of the evidence
on record.
We now turn to the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. It is common knowledge that this Court deals mainly with points of law.
In view of the reasons stated above we are satisfied that there was ample evidence to support and justify the decision of the courts
below that the appellant bought the "shamba" in dispute from the respondent. Also in instituting the suit the respondent
had locus
12
standi as the heir of the estate (shamba) after the death of his father, and his young^ brother the late Vuai Khamis Vuai did not
complain about it.
0 On whether the learned judge should have ordered the evaluation to be made by either a Government Valuer or to be made according
to market value, we do not think that it is necessary to decide it in view of the decision we are proposing to make. As observed
above, there were no sufficient grounds to justify the High Court to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact by the courts
below.
In the event and for the reasons stated, we allow the appeal with costs.
DATED at ZANZIBAR this 26th day of November, 2004.
.PDF of original document
.RTF of original document