Judgment-High Court Petition No 164 of 2011 - Hakijamii

homes, and then demolish their homes without giving them alternativeaccommodation. It exacerbates the violation when the eviction is carriedout, as in this case, even after those affected have sought and obtained theintervention of the court. I therefore find and hold that the eviction of thepetitioners from Mitumba Village after a 7 day notice was unreasonable.• I now turn to consider whether, as claimed by the petitioners, the evictionand demolition resulted in violation of their rights under the Constitution.Violation of the Right to Property under Article 40• As indicated above, the petitioners’ claim to ownership of the land, eitherby way of adverse possession or through allocation by the ProvincialCommissioner, cannot be maintained. However, the protection of propertyunder Article 40 of the Constitution which is set out above extends to otherproperty besides land. This is because Article 260 of the Constitutiondefines property as follows:“property” includes any vested or contingent right to, orinterest in or arising from—(a) land, or permanent fixtures on, or improvements to, land;(b) goods or personal property;(c) intellectual property; or(d) money, choses in action or negotiable instruments;• The constitutional right to property thus extends to, and must thereforeinclude protection of, goods and personal property. The petitioners claimthat in the eviction from the premises, their houses and household goodswere destroyed, the 2 nd respondent did not give them an opportunity tosalvage any of their goods, and they were left destitute.