high court judgement of lohay akonaay v. the attorney general

More documents

Recommendations

Info

= Thej.r customaty lanrl'law terureover the land 'in, question was "- .•...' ..... '.~' .~..'~ ,._, . decreec~ Ln Arusha R..M. Court Civil Case No.4 of i~87 which decre~ ~ms executed and' the petiti~ne~put In possessiori of the said 1and with effect from the ll.l~,e'. Despite ~ge1r lawful r~overy of the 'land 'the 'petition~rs compfatn tha,t they .'" •.......... . --. . . , •. . , .. • Cf~ ,threatened with eviction consequent to the enactment ef, I 'ACJc No••22/92 The Regulation Qf Land Tenure (Established Vi1J.a',:res)·Act 1992 which i'n'~he:.":D~inio" of the.,etiti.ners 15 uncons t.Lcut donaj and should be s truck ,dow:nforthw1th. Hence i!' ,'r :~ :':. ( ..:-' '. : ;;.: :": ' the pr~sent petition. ...•. .. ': n, •.• i~.t-b'-i.e"comm~nce~~nt of the hearing ~f this petiti.oJ'). the ,""".. t· ,,-~)- -:, . . . ' :,..:-..' . ~ t C~u1",s'elfor the pet1tiorters arg:U,ed ~hat -the ,dei'ence, &1; the " .'~. .'., ,,:; ~',! ,..', ~,. • " ~.' . .. - . ' responfent should be struck off, bec:aus~ i~ is vague. ~The ·r~spor.(lent·i"'s couns el countered that. ,the repiy to tp·e ~etit'10n ~.'....!,! '. . . . . .' : ~ '.' . ; .•..•. d:~'!i~iystates wh.kh. mat.ters are adm.1tted ..and which ones are ':~. :-', ,:;.\ - •. " .• ' . .".,' ",~. ~" '; " ~. .'. • '.' •• : ' .
3 ,";':e " other action (')r .remeqy~1awfully avail~le to h:iIn"in respect of £hk same matter, institute ....l'roceedings for . rel-ie:; in the High Court." '," .. '., . . While ~.rt::icle 26(2) of the 'Constitutio~ provides - "26. (2) Eve.r:ype_rson is entitled, subject to the procedure provided hy.the law, to. inst~tute proceedings for the protec~ion of the Constitution and legality." _~_'" The present petition is therefore properly bet;ore the Court ;:,s··.stipulated in Articles 30(3) and 26(2) of the Constj.tut50n. t: ; , . '" ~~.ccordinq to the counsel f.or thepeti tioners ~ection 3(1) . . _o~,;.ct No.22 of 1992. p~rports to exterminate thegeemed riqht Of occupancy of the pet:ttioners OVer the land in d1st'ute " -. which.they hold under section 2 of Cap 113 thereby violating •.~. .~ hrt~_cle 24(1)· of the Constitution which gives the people' ef this cour.tr~r. the right to hoLd property including land, lawfully acq~ired. They turther contend that section 4: of Act 22/'2 outrageously denies the petitioners compensation there.y ,- . vjolating :"rticle 24 of t.he Constituion •• By block1hg the .,p~t:t.tion~rs free access to cour ta of 1aw; sectien 5(a) and 6 .... of J:~ct22/92. allegedly viol ates the bas ic concept of . . . . , .,.'. . s::::.:::.:ti:-n of p~wers. particul.arly Articles 13(3) and loe of the Const:itution. "The petitioner~-alleqe :that Sections 5 anq q,. ~f;' i-;'Ct22/92' discriminate the peasants, there~y vi1lating A.t::ticle.13(1) and (2) of theConstituticm and that by ousting . . the jurisdiction of.the courtsov~r land disputes stipulated in Act 1'!o.22/92 th'e said Act offends Articles rei, 13(3} and 30 . . " . of '~'1eCon~titution. Owinq to the vilation of the various .- : provi.s:i.ons 01f the Constitution, the petitioners 'J.tray that Act ..•. No.22 of 1.992 be '-declared null ana void. The r!'!spond.ent conceeds that the petitioners lawfully . '. . acquirec' their deemed right to occupency-ovex the suit land in J943 before 'Operation Vijiji~' But the reSpendent conter'('~s that the petition!=rs' land was lawfully .c~ired .' '. ". J by the,:vi11age councd tvof KambL ya S~ba under the Villages and Ujamaa':Villages Act No.2l of 1975 specifically Section 11 thereof. :-.
Page 1: . I; , ;. " .', " " 11.)1' .~ 'n.,
Page 5 and 6: 5. , " " " , - , . .~.. II(a) any r
Page 7 and 8: , , ~' , . .' • I ·1· .~~. . ~.
Page 9 and 10: , -' , ~ .- .
Page 11 and 12: 11 They h.av~ ,'at in' this app1ica

high court judgement of lohay akonaay v. the attorney general

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

Delete template?

Save as template?