high court judgement of lohay akonaay v. the attorney general

-.
•.
4
'. ~
•
0.: .,' ~ ~
,"
. ~~ 1'"
The J C~r1~e~ Principal State Attorney submitted that the
petit~or~rsatt~mpt to r~acquire their c~nfiscated deemed
right of o,=cupan~,Yovez' the land in cHspute vi~lates, Article 9
of t..'1e''::ol'~stitution now that the vilI acre council has lawfully
taker; over the 'I and. Mr .• Mono maintained 'that ParI iament
E'~c.Cte(~•.c"i:No.22/92 under Article 64 of the Cbnstitution
so :5,'::'~S'constitutional. He categoricall y denied that
s ect.Lor.s 3, 4,5 an'd6 of Act No e 2'2/9;i viol'ate ~hy provisj~ns
'6fth~C:ohsti tution noting that s oct Jon 4 only limits
~~
compense-c+on by specifying that no body would be compensated
for a u~re riqht or interest in land. It 1;'5 the view of
'Mr. TIoDb '~chat se~tion' 4 of Act !'l0.22/92 does not prohibit
'c·Omp8r.sa":5,onfor unexhaus bed improvements on the land 'which
the pe';::5':::i.oners'can claim underAr~-1cle 24(1) and (2') of the
C6r.s'~:5,tut50n. He faulted the petitioners conduct 6f grabbing
lar,/ ~J;"dchvioiates Article 29(3) and (,0 :'f the Constitution.
,. Thf: ,j~~spondent'defended' the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the
" 'cb\oirts of 1aw' in Land cases aris inq under Act No.22/92 saying
thc,t ~.r'~::j_cle13«:;(a) of the Constituiinn al Lows the existence
of tl:-5bunals 1ike 'the ones stipulated in Act No.22/92 for
adjudica~j6n of'lan~di~~ute~~ Si~ce AdtNd.22/~2 does n~t
vio i,te any p~ov~~16t1Sof the cons ti tution the respondent
"~raY""0 'that the ,'petition 'be dismissed.,
T,1e issue is wh~the~ sectjons 3, 4~ 5 and 6 of Ac~
'}.Too'"22/92 'the Requlationof Land'Tenure (Established Villaqes)
. . . ~ .:
i'.ct 1992 v+ol at.e pr-ovi.sdons of th~ Constitutlorl4
,":~ction 3(1) of Act No.22/92 provides:
. ~ - "
, "3 (1) Notw Lt.hst.andLnq any other law to the
•... ..
t..
- ," . ,-
contrary; all r1qhtSto occupy or tbuse land
, ' ,
in accdrda~ce with any custom or ruie of
c~stomary law existing'or held or clai~ed to
be held by any person in any village land
'. . ...
~riorto Operation Vijiji, are hereby
~.extinguished" ~
"
Section 3(2) of Act No.2~/92 clarifies that deemed rights of
-. '~'.
occupa~cy extit1gui~hed under section 3(1) shall not affect -
.'
.
lI(a)
any right.eoo./S