Moshi — THE Chairman of the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Moshi, Mr Chiduo Zayumba, has declared Uru Shimbwe Rural Primary Cooperative Society, located in Moshi rural, as the rightful owner of farm land at plot number 198 situated at Longuo village, Uru Ward.
The applicant had sued two respondents - Pascal Aloyce Malisa and Bladius Uisso over a dispute as to who is the lawful proprietor of the land, measuring 253 acres.According to the ex-parte judgement delivered here on Friday by Chairman Zayumba, the applicant claimed that the first respondent, Mr Malisa, invaded the land and sold the land to the second respondent, Uisso.
The applicant, therefore requested, inter alia, for a declaratory order that the Cooperative Society is the rightful owner of the land and an eviction order be granted against the respondents who did not appear before the Tribunal to defend themselves, despite being served by a substitute notice published in the 'Mwananchi' newspaper on August 16 last year, hence the case proceeded ex-parte.
The applicant brought one witness only, Mr George Hassan Mushi who stated that he was a Board Member of the Society, and that the Society owns the land with Certificate of Title No 16182 (Exhibit 1).The first respondent requested to exchange the land with his plot but the Society's Board Members rejected the request in a meeting held on September 11, 2003 (Exhibit 3).
Despite the denial of the first respondent that he sold the land to the second respondent in a sale agreement dated September 9, 2007 (Exhibit 5), the sale did not hold water as the respondents had each erected a building on the land in which they once resided but have now vacated as one building was incomplete.
The respondents refused to vacate the land on the grounds that the applicant owns land elsewhere. In his verdict, Mr Zayumba issued an order which stated that respondents are to be evicted from the land and structures which they had erected be demolished.
The Tribunal Chairman concurred with Lady Assessor, Mrs Mchau who allowed the application because the applicant's evidence was unopposed and that the applicant had proved its application by production of exhibits that the land was surveyed and held under Certificate of Title in the name of the applicant.