Group Number 7
Group Number 7
Group Number 7
Right to own property under the constitution of united republic of Tanzania of 1977 which
amended time to time under article 24 it provided that every person is entitles to own property
and has righty to protection of his property according to the law 1. As well as in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights Article 17(1) it provides that every person has the right to own
property as well as in association with other 2. Therefore, ownership of any of movable and
immovable property comes under the property rights, and those rights property are the rights to
own, acquire (through purchase, through gift, through inheritance), manage, enjoy, and dispose
of tangible and intangible property, which include land, house, money, banking account and
other assets, livestock and crops.3
1|Page
dependent on the land. Over 80 percent of all this was discussed in the case Ephraim v. Holaria
Pastor and Another5
In this case a woman, Holaria Pastory had inherited some clan land from her father by a valid
Will. Finding that she was getting old and senile and had no one to take care of her, she decided
to sell the clan land to one GervazKaizilege, a stranger and non-member of her clan. One
Bernardo Ephrahim, a member of the clan filed a suit in the Primary Court at Kashasha, Muleba
District, praying for a declaration that the sale of the clan land was void under the Haya
Customary law - for females have no power to sell clan land. This was in accordance with the
Haya Customary Law (Declaration) (No. 4) Order of 1963; specifically, with its paragraph 20,
which was to the effect that "women can inherit and acquire usufruct right but may not sell." The
Primary Court granted the prayer. She appealed to the District Court at Muleba. Here the
decision of the Primary Court was quashed on the basis of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution
which guaranteed equality for both men and women. Bernardo Ephrahim was not satisfied and
appealed to the High Court of Tanzania at Mwanza. At the High Court, the decision of the district
Court was upheld on the ground that the relevant Haya Customary Law was discriminatory on
the basis of gender, thus inconsistent with Article 13 (4) of the Constitution but also the right of
owning property as per Article 24 of the Constitution. It was held to the court by Mwalusanya, J.
2|Page
its required necessary for such measure this violated the concept of the persons right to own
property as his property its treated of lesser merit than the other this is provided under Section
34(3) of the Land Act7 where a person owning land under customary rights can be vacated or
compensated to the extent required so as a granted right of occupancy is granted to another
person
This is the negative applicability of this right to own property as it disturbs the enjoyment of a
constitutional right of a person to own property as per Article 24 of the Constitution8
CONCLUSION
This assignment as covered on the aspect of the negative application of the right to own property
as it shows on matters that shows how this right is not been upheld as how the Constitution of the
United Republic of Tanzania (1977) provides under the bill of right but such right can be
hindered by self-individuals practicing such constitutional right in a negative manner as a person
has the right to own property but such right should not be misused nor should not be violated as
all forms lie under negative application of such right.
7
CAP 13 R: E 2019
8
The constitution of united republic of Tanzania of 1977 as amended time to time
9
CAP 118 R: E 2019
10
Ibid
3|Page