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...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

compensation depends on the circumstances of each case. In some cases a re-locationof land may be fair compensation. Fair compensation however is not confined to whatis known in-law as unexhausted improvement. Obviously where there areunexhausted improvements, the constitution as well as the ordinance land lawrequires fair compensation to be paid for its deprivation.We are also of the firm view that where there are no unexhausted improvements, butsome effort has been put into the land by the occupier, that occupier is entitled toprotection under Article 24 (2) and fair compensation is payable for deprivation ofproperty. We are led to this conclusion by the principle, stated by Mwalimu Julius K.Nyerere in 1958 and which appears in his book freedom and unity Nyerere states,inter alia:When I use my energy and talent to clear a piece of ground for Amy use it is clearthat I am trying to transform this basic gift from God so that it can satisfy a humanneed. It is true, however, that this land is not mine, but the efforts made by me inclearing that land enable me to lay claim of ownership over the cleared piece ofground. But it is not really the land itself that belongs to me but only the clearedground which will remain mine as long as I continue to work on it. <strong>By</strong> clearing thatground I have actually added to its value and have enable it to be used to satisfy ahuman need. Whoever then takes this piece of ground must pay me for adding valueto it through clearing it by my own Labour.In the light of the provision of article 24 (1) and (2) of the constitution, section 3 and4 of act No. 22 of 1992 violate the constitution by denying the petitioners the right togo on possessing their deemed rights of occupancy and what is worse, denying thepetitioners compensation under section 3 (4) of Act No. 22 of 1992.Like both sides to this case, we are also of the view that the learned trial judge erredin holding that the provisions of section 4 of Act No. 22 of 1992 denied the petitioneror any other occupier compensation for unexhausted improvements. The clear84

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!