Land 1 a\-I - Abendonment- Sagia and corresponding gusad. land- Cessat ion
of occupation and removal of parts of dt~ellings - Basis for original
claim not materia.l Hhere held abandoned.

Land law- Buildings situated on land of another - Abandoned land-
Com~ensation therefore after abandonment of claim.

Land lal4- GuSM. - Abi?ndonment thereof I~here claimant held to have

abandoned corresponding sagia.

Native laH and custom- ~ - Abandonment thereof where claimant held
to have abandoned oorresponding sagia.

Defendant omJe into possession of a'sagia end its corresponding
guaad land in Mero,le District through his ancestors l"lho had built
houses on the land. After more than 10 years occupation, defendant
left this sagia and occupied another, ~d transferred parts of the
buildings. ;~ feu years Lat ez he ° attempted to eject a new occupant

of the first sagia in 211 action in the lo'cal gisrn court, but failed
to obtain a decree for delivery of possession. The court awarded
par-t of t he sagia to the nel-l occupant, and compensated defendant vlith
the award of part of the gusad land.

Plaint iffs, the registered ouner-s of the sagia brought this

suit agamat the d.ef'endarrt and the new occupant and one other,
claiming for delivery vf possession of the s8~ia and its corresponding
gusad land. Def'endarrt counter-claimed for part of the gusad land

and for some nevr buildines uh i ch he constructed there after the decree
of the lecal court.

Held: Defendant's cessation of occupation and removal of parts of

the buildings constituted an abandonment cf his claim. As a consequence,

* Court: Lomax, J.

the counter-claim to the gusad land must fail, though he m~ claim
for the buildings constructed subsequent to the decree of the local,
court.

Revision.

!'*.~~~·:-.:14, (,tlNli_f 'h~~~ .• : In this case Saeid Abdulla Idris, one

of the three defendants in DC-CS-118-1944 (Merowe) is applying for
.revision of the decree of the District Judge Merowe (Mohamed Eff Yousef

._ :~ashem), in which it was ordered that the three defendants in that suit
should deliver to the plaintiffs the .possession of the gusad land of
sagia No. 15 El Araki Village. In this same suit, a counter-claim by
tl~o of the defendants, of which pplicant was one, claiming a ,port ion
(not exactly specified) of this same gusad land of sag~a No. 15 and

certain buildings on that port.ion •. las dismissed. Saeid Abdulla (applicant)
now applies for revision of this decree for delivery of the land to
plaintiffs, which decree also dismisses the counter-claim.

The case for the applioant is that, although he is not now among
the registered owners of sagia No. 15, this sagia originally belonged

to h~s.anoestors, who built on the part now in dispute. His father died
in 1919, and he himself (with'his brother Abbas) abandoned the houses in
sagia No. 15 in 1935 (or 1932) and built on sagia No. 141 leaving behind
on sagia No. 15 two rooms in good condition. A year later they removed
the roofs from these three rooms and a kitohen which they had also
abandoned. A oertain Abdulla Kaka (a third. defendant in DC-CS-118-l944
(Merowe)) obtained permission in 1935 from. applicant to live in these.
rooms. In 1938 applicant requested Abdulla Kaka to leave, but Abdulla
Kaka refused. The. applicant .. therefo~e brought a case against him
DC-CS-60-l942 (Merowe), .claiming delivery of possession of the house on
sagia No. 15. This suit was on M~ 14, 1944 and was transferred with.
consent of applicant to the looal gism court. In due course the president
of the court awarded part of the land to Abdulla Kaka and compensated
applicant with an equivalent area in the gusad land of sagias 15 and 16
El Araki Village. The applicant did not really accept the award of the
local oourts, though he took no aotion which might be said to be an ~
appeal against it.

Applicent counter-claimed in DC-CS-1l8-l944 (?olero\ie) for the land
on which the old buildings stood, and for certain new building (a hosh
\-Iall) wh i ch he and his brother had put up since the award by the local
courts. This counter-claim viaS dismissed, an order from \ihich a.pplicant
now applies for revision.

The case of the plaintiffs is that the land on which the buildings
"lhich applicant claimo are situated and the land which applicant claims
to be his is in fact a part of the registered area of sagia No. 15 El
Araki Village. Furthermore, the plaintiffs, as owners of sagia No. 15,
would claim this part (presumably even if it were not registered to them)
on the Rnt::JtC"i:.pl.tI of gusad or land lying "opposite" to registered land.
When the dispute arose in 1944 between applicant (\1i th his brother)
against Abdulla Kaka third defendant in DC-CS-118-1944 (Merowe) and

app.l Lcent utt empted to turn Abdulla Kaka off sagia No. 15 and (vide
DC-CS-60-1942 (Mer:Jvle)) out of the buildings, plaintiffs considered it
Has time they br-ought ['. case to make it clear that this land was in fact
their property; hence they brought this suit DC-CS-1l8-1944 (Merovle)..

As I see it, the order of the learn~d District Judge should ~and.

The evidence of the District Surveyor (Hussein Eff Abdel Rahman) is
that the registered boundaries of sagia No. 15, as shown on the map of
1904 includ.e the area on wh i ch are the buildings claimed by ple,intiffs.
Furthermore, the evidence of the applicant himself is that, howsoever-
he or his anceet or-s vrez-e originally on the Land , he abandoned it and

the buildings :;).8 long ego as 1932, or perhaps 1935. T'nere is no evidence
to show that Abdulla Kaka vrerrt to reside on aag i.a No. 15 with permission
from applic~t. The witnesses brought by applicant in DC-CS-118-1944
(Merowe) can in fact give no definite date when applicant did abandon
this sL'-Cia No. 15, but it might \'Iell have been as long ago as 1929. In
fact the land in dispute is registered to Olmers of sagia No. 15, and

the applicant, vlhatever his claim ma,y have been through his father,
previously residing in buildL'1gs on that land, clearly abandoned it years
ago Hit:lOut attempting to aubs t ant Lat e any claim he might have'.

According to the decree of the District Judge, the applicant may
still claim, if he wishes, for the buildings (perhaps only part of a
hosh vlC1,11) whioh he has erected \-lithin the registered boundaries of
sagia No. 15 since the award of the local courts.

I am therefore dismissing the application or revision and make no
order as to oosts.

Application dismissed.