10.07.2015 Views

By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

(1) Re H.H. (1967) 2 Q.B 617.(2) Padfield v Minister of Agriculture. Fishers and Food (1968) A.C. 997.(3) Schmidt v Secretary of State for <strong>Home</strong> Affairs. (1969) 2 Ch. 149(4) R. v Gaming Board ex parte Benaim (1970) 2 Q.B 417(5) Congreve v <strong>Home</strong> Office (1976 Q.B. 629.P.R. Dastur, for the appellant.M.a. Lakha, for the respondent.March 8, 1982. MWAKASENDO, J.A., read the following considered judgment ofthe court: The dispute from which this appeal arises relates to a right ofoccupancy over a piece of land described variously as Plot No. 154 or Plot No.94 which is situated at Kipawa Industrial Area within the City of Dar es Salaam.As both counsel, Mr. Dastur for the appellant company and Mr. Lakha for thespondent company, have conceded that Plot no. 154 and Plot No. 94 are oneand the same plot of land we propose throughout this judgment to refer to thedisputed plot as plot No. 94 or simply as “the land”.At the trial both Tanzania Manufactures Limited (the respondents) and PatmanGarments Industries Limited (the appellants) claimed to the lawful occupiers ofthe land. The Tanzania Manufactures Limited based their claim to the land on acertificate of right of occupancy No. 22378- Exhibit P1 which is now mysteriously632

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!