The Registered Trustees of TYMCA vs. Lineth Oswald Temu @ Mrs. Oswald Stanslaus Temu & Another (Land Case No. 27 of 2020) [2023] TZHC 20570 (28 August 2023)

Key Facts

Deceased Name

Issues

• The court assesses whether the second defendant's counter claim is time barred, based on the deceased's death date and legal proceedings.
• The court evaluates if the title deed for plots 110A/1 and 110A/2 was lawfully obtained, considering the evidence presented.
• The court must determine if the plaintiff's suit is time barred, considering when the cause of action arose and the applicable limitation period.
• The court determines if the disputed land is officially surveyed and recognized as combined plots 110A/1 and 110A/2 under CT No. 055125/20.
• The court examines whether the defendants are trespassers on the disputed land based on the plaintiff's ownership claims.
• The court must decide the lawful owner of the combined plots 110A/1 and 110A/2, referencing CT No. 055025/20.
• The court assesses if the late Stanslaus George Temu became the lawful owner through adverse possession, applying relevant legal principles.
• The court determines if the plaintiff can claim ownership of land previously registered under the name of the former society, considering name changes.
• The court decides the appropriate relief for the parties, including eviction, injunction, or damages, based on the determined ownership and legal issues.

Date of Death

Holdings

• The Certificate of Title for the disputed land was lawfully obtained. The court affirmed the plaintiff's title is valid and not subject to the defendants' claims of fraud or invalidity.
• The plaintiff can claim the land under the former society name. The court confirmed that the plaintiff's name changes (e.g., from Tanzania National YMCA to Registered Trustees of Tanzania National YMCA) are legally valid under the Trustees Incorporation Act, preserving ownership.
• The adverse possession claim fails because the late Stanslaus Temu did not have a legal title to the land. The court cited precedents stating adverse possession requires a lawful initial title, which Stanslaus lacked, as foreign ownership in 1960 was illegal.
• The plaintiff is the lawful owner of the disputed land, and the defendants are declared trespassers. The court found the plaintiff's title deed (exhibit P8) valid and emphasized that the defendants failed to prove the late Stanslaus Temu had a legal title to pass to them.
• The disputed land is surveyed as combined Plots Nos 110A/1 and 110A/2, Block E, Arusha City, with Certificate of Title No. 055025/20. The court dismissed the defendants' challenge to the survey plan's validity, noting the lack of a date does not invalidate it.
• The plaintiff's suit is not time-barred as the cause of action arose in 2003 and the case was filed in 2020, within the limitation period. The court noted ongoing litigation since 2009, which precludes a time-barred claim.
• The 2nd defendant's counter-claim is not time-barred because the right of action for the deceased's estate accrues from the date of death (1999), but the counter-claim was filed in 2021 after his appointment as administrator, which is within the statutory period.
• The defendants are trespassers. The court ruled that the plaintiff's title deed conclusively establishes ownership, and the defendants cannot claim adverse possession or inheritance due to Stanslaus Temu's lack of legal title.
• The court ordered the defendants to vacate the land, issued a permanent injunction, and awarded costs to the plaintiff. The reliefs include declaration of ownership, eviction, injunction, and costs as prayed for in the amended plaint.

Remedies

• The 1st and 2nd defendants were declared trespassers and ordered to give vacant possession to the plaintiff or face forceful eviction.
• The court declared that the plaintiff is the lawful owner of the landed property in Plots Nos 110A/1 and 110A/2 Block 'E' Arusha City with Certificate of Occupancy Title No. 055025/20.
• A permanent injunction was issued to the defendants, their agents, and successors to prevent trespassing into the plaintiff's plots.
• The defendants were ordered to pay the costs of the suit.

Will Type

Probate Status

Legal Principles

• The court applied the civil burden of proof (preponderance of probability) to determine ownership. The plaintiff's evidence, including the Certificate of Right of Occupancy and survey plan, was deemed more credible than the defendants' uncorroborated oral claims. Hearsay evidence from the defendants about the late Stanslaus Temu's ownership was rejected as lacking legal weight under Section 62(1)(a) of the Evidence Act.
• The court determined that the doctrine of adverse possession does not apply to the disputed land. It emphasized that adverse possession requires lawful initial occupation, which was not established here as the Europeans who allegedly transferred the land in the 1960s could not have legally owned it under Tanzanian law. Section 20 of the Land Act prohibits foreigners from owning land without specific investment authorization, invalidating the defendants' claim.

Succession Regime

Precedent Name

• Abdallah Mtandi vs. Ramadhani Ikungu & Seif Muhoni
• Amina Maulid Ambali & 2 Others vs. Ramadhani Juma
• Registered Trustees of the Holy Spirit Sisters Tanzania vs. January Kamili Shayo and 136 Others
• Paschal Maganga vs. Kitinga Mbarika
• Spendors (T) Limited vs. Victor Raymon D'Souza

Executor Name

• Lineth Oswald Temu
• Felix Leon Temu (Administrator of Estate of the Late Stanslaus George Temu)

Cited Statute

• Law of Limitation Act [Cap 89 R.E. 2019]
• Trustees Incorporation Act, Cap 318
• Law of Evidence Act [Cap 6 R.E. 2022]
• Land Act [Cap 113 R.E. 2019]

Executor Appointment

• Appointed as administratrix of late Oswald Stanslaus Temu's estate via Probate Cause No. 151 of 1999 and closed the probate on 02/06/2021.
• Appointed as administrator of late Stanslaus George Temu's estate on 12/05/2021 by Arusha Urban Primary Court.

Judge Name

Passage Text

• The Court of Appeal of Tanzania in the case of Registered Trustees of the Holy Spirit Sisters Tanzania vs. January Kamili Shayo and 136 Others, Civil Appeal No. 193 of 2016, enunciated the prerequisites for one to raise a claim of ownership of land under the doctrine of adverse possession. It was held thus, 1. That it was not operative for a land held under the Right of Occupancy to be granted without any written document from the guarantor and, most importantly, without authorisation of the superior landlord, the President; and 2. That the judge erred to decide that possession and occupation of land for a considerable period, in itself, automatically gives rise to a claim of adverse possession.
• From the brief narration above it is clear that, the actual cause of action started in 2003, then there was a silent moment until when the matter resumed again in 2009 to date. Be as it may, DW5 denies being in any correspondence with the plaintiffs and in her testimony as well as he counsel's final submission, the cause of action accrued when the 1st defendant was sued for trespass in 2009. However, since then parties have been in court corridors, hence this matter cannot be termed as time barred.
• Unlike the defendants, the plaintiff having proved his ownership through the Certificate of Right of Occupancy it is the firm view that this Court that, the plaintiff has successfully proved on the balance of probabilities that the land in dispute belongs to her making the 2nd defendant the trespasser.

Beneficiary Classes