NAFISA. \ND AISHA MOHAMED SAID OSMAN v. ZEINAB ABDEL HAY MUSTAFA | The Judiciary - Republic of Sudan

(HIGH COURT OF JUST1CE)

NAFISA. \ND AISHA MOHAMED SAID OSMAN v. ZEINAB ABDEL HAY MUSTAFA

DC-CS-1946-

Principles

· Land law by co-owners, members of a famll)—BefOre partition no legal right to rent partition legal right to delivery up of divided shares— Damages for delay

l) Ama, qes—MeoSure of damages for wrongful occupation of land based on hypothetical rent

Judgment

I and ss as held by the members of a Mohammedan family in unequal un- dicided shares. No legal liability arises at this st for occupation – by one

‘xposltion ot chances of success of allottees to river-bed land on general ( grOUn(lS ‘ \lorcover on equitable grounds river conditions having become established and occupants or their predecessors having been in I)OSse;siOn of much the same land for a very long time, the occupants will clearly succeed because:

l) it would be a considerable hardship to disturb such long possession involving working of the land for many years,

(? Although temporary in origin the allotment became recognised as more or less perniafleflt.

(3) the likelihood ol a change in river conditions such as might com pensate the occupants br the loss of this land is remote.”

Paragraph (is irrelevant in this case as respondents though para (hutists yet they arc rnlscikcen and not compensation allottees whose case the note seeks to treat.

Again the note goes on to say: For it appears that the occupants may be able to prove th they have been in possession of the same lands for more than twenty years, the river conditions have become more or less established during this period and that their temporary allotments have thus in course of time become quasi-permanent.”

Though the evidence did not tackle river conditiønS at the site, yet I take it that it has been established as the land in existence since 1927. In fact these claims are a typical illustration of the exan in question:

the respondents who were allotted these lands because of their poverty lived, fed and reproduced on them for nearly twenty years and as I see it it is only equitable that they continue doing so. For the above reasons I think that these revisions should be dismissed.

(HIGH COURT OF JUST1CE)

NAFISA. \ND AISHA MOHAMED SAID OSMAN v. ZEINAB ABDEL HAY MUSTAFA

DC-CS-1946-

Principles

· Land law by co-owners, members of a famll)—BefOre partition no legal right to rent partition legal right to delivery up of divided shares— Damages for delay

l) Ama, qes—MeoSure of damages for wrongful occupation of land based on hypothetical rent

Judgment

I and ss as held by the members of a Mohammedan family in unequal un- dicided shares. No legal liability arises at this st for occupation – by one

‘xposltion ot chances of success of allottees to river-bed land on general ( grOUn(lS ‘ \lorcover on equitable grounds river conditions having become established and occupants or their predecessors having been in I)OSse;siOn of much the same land for a very long time, the occupants will clearly succeed because:

l) it would be a considerable hardship to disturb such long possession involving working of the land for many years,

(? Although temporary in origin the allotment became recognised as more or less perniafleflt.

(3) the likelihood ol a change in river conditions such as might com pensate the occupants br the loss of this land is remote.”

Paragraph (is irrelevant in this case as respondents though para (hutists yet they arc rnlscikcen and not compensation allottees whose case the note seeks to treat.

Again the note goes on to say: For it appears that the occupants may be able to prove th they have been in possession of the same lands for more than twenty years, the river conditions have become more or less established during this period and that their temporary allotments have thus in course of time become quasi-permanent.”

Though the evidence did not tackle river conditiønS at the site, yet I take it that it has been established as the land in existence since 1927. In fact these claims are a typical illustration of the exan in question:

the respondents who were allotted these lands because of their poverty lived, fed and reproduced on them for nearly twenty years and as I see it it is only equitable that they continue doing so. For the above reasons I think that these revisions should be dismissed.

(HIGH COURT OF JUST1CE)

NAFISA. \ND AISHA MOHAMED SAID OSMAN v. ZEINAB ABDEL HAY MUSTAFA

DC-CS-1946-

Principles

· Land law by co-owners, members of a famll)—BefOre partition no legal right to rent partition legal right to delivery up of divided shares— Damages for delay

l) Ama, qes—MeoSure of damages for wrongful occupation of land based on hypothetical rent

Judgment

I and ss as held by the members of a Mohammedan family in unequal un- dicided shares. No legal liability arises at this st for occupation – by one

‘xposltion ot chances of success of allottees to river-bed land on general ( grOUn(lS ‘ \lorcover on equitable grounds river conditions having become established and occupants or their predecessors having been in I)OSse;siOn of much the same land for a very long time, the occupants will clearly succeed because:

l) it would be a considerable hardship to disturb such long possession involving working of the land for many years,

(? Although temporary in origin the allotment became recognised as more or less perniafleflt.

(3) the likelihood ol a change in river conditions such as might com pensate the occupants br the loss of this land is remote.”

Paragraph (is irrelevant in this case as respondents though para (hutists yet they arc rnlscikcen and not compensation allottees whose case the note seeks to treat.

Again the note goes on to say: For it appears that the occupants may be able to prove th they have been in possession of the same lands for more than twenty years, the river conditions have become more or less established during this period and that their temporary allotments have thus in course of time become quasi-permanent.”

Though the evidence did not tackle river conditiønS at the site, yet I take it that it has been established as the land in existence since 1927. In fact these claims are a typical illustration of the exan in question:

the respondents who were allotted these lands because of their poverty lived, fed and reproduced on them for nearly twenty years and as I see it it is only equitable that they continue doing so. For the above reasons I think that these revisions should be dismissed.