Emmanuel Paul v. Wilfred Rwemigira, (PC) Civ. App. 31-D-68 18/10/68, Biron J.

The plaintiff claimed to be entitled to redeem a clan shamba sold by the second defendant to the first defendant without clan consent. The second defendant asserted that he had consulted and obtained the approval of the clan elders, but he did not consult the plaintiff because, although the plaintiff was a member of the clan, he was descended from a different family – his approval was therefore not necessary for the validity of the sale. The Primary Court, sitting with assessors, found upon considering the authorities including Cory and Hartnoll, Customary Law of the Haya Tribe, as well as decided cases, that, although the plaintiff was descended from a different branch of the clan, he was entitled to be consulted, failing which he could redeem the shamba if near relatives failed to do so. An order was made for redemption within six months from the date of judgment. On appeal, the District Court upheld the judgment but reduced the redemption period to one month on consideration that a purchaser who was in possession of the shamba, well knowing that he would not be able to retain it, if it was redeemed, would fail to cultivate it. The plaintiff appealed to the High Court against the reduction of the redemption period.

Held: (1) The redemption price would automatically embrace improvements effected during the redemption period.

         “The judgment of the Primary Court was delivered on the 5^th of October 1967. That is more than a year ago. The six months’ redemption period granted by the Primary Court will long have expired by now. Although the order about to be made by this court may possibly be no more than an academic exercise, in view of the expiry of the period, as it is possible that the status quo has been maintained. pending the determination of the appeal, I formally allow it. The order of the District Court reducing the period to one month is set aside and the judgment of the Primary Court is restored in toto”.