Tuesday, October 30, 2018

Ministry of Domains dragged to justice by Tsimi Evouna over Land dispute


The territorially decentralized community headed by Mr. Tsimi Evouna has dragged the Ministry of Domains to justice in order to appropriate land wrongly assigned, according to her, to a third in the area of ​​Messa II. The court, not only does not share his opinion, but also believes that the CUY has shown "obstruction and dilatory" throughout the trial.


Last week, the Yaounde Urban Community (CUY) was defeated before the Administrative Court. This entity headed by the government delegate, super mayor of Yaounde, had filed a lawsuit to the Ministry of Domains, Cadastre and Land Affairs (Mindcaf) in order to seize a land ceded to a third party. For this, the CUY had seized the administrative chamber of the Supreme Court in May 1999, in order to make recognize its supposed rights on the ground claimed. In vain.

Read also: Call to vote Kamto: King of Baham quarantined

On October 2, 2018, the Yaoundé Administrative Court, which inherited the case from the Supreme Court, described its approach as unfounded after finding that the CUY exhibited "obstruction and dilatory" during the judgment of the Supreme Court. the case. At the origin of the dispute which dates from a good twenty years, a plot of land located at a place called Messa II in the city of Yaounde. The CUY alleged that following a decree of 20 November 1997, 30 hectares of land were retroceded to it to engage in works of public utility. According to her, this public domain returned from that moment into the pocket of the private domain of the State. Wanting to carry out her work, she realized that a plot of land occupied by Mrs. Mounda born Nana Jeanne, subject of land title No. 24865 / Mfoundi, was removed from her control. In other words, the CUY suggests that the claimed piece of land was contained in its land title, but does not understand the mechanism by which a third party could obtain title to it. Decided to recover it, she dragged at the bar the Ministry of the Domains which attributed said land title.

Read also: Urgent - Exposed: Paul Biya publishes a false letter of congratulations from Macron

Contentious expertise

As a defense, the Department of Domains says that no confusion is possible since its technical services have raised all ambiguity. According to the State, the act issued for Ms. Mounda's benefit is due process. The lady was awarded a concession on a provisional basis in 1996 and after completing the specifications that had been prescribed for her, she was definitively granted the concession via a decree which gave her access to the land title. For the Mindcaf, the government delegate to the Yaounde Urban Community, the author of the motion that initiated the legal action, did not provide evidence of the formal filing of a prior graceful appeal within the time limits provided by law. All things that, from his point of view, render his procedure invalid.

The beneficiary of the titled property title, too, made an entry into the procedure (voluntary intervention) to defeat the CUY's approach. Ms. Jeanne Mounda argues that at the beginning of the litigation, a cadastral survey was carried out by a sworn surveyor, who had established that his land was not part of the entire area that had been allocated to the CUY. At the first hearing of the case on October 18, 2016, the judges ordered the initiation of a cadastral survey to determine whether the parcel of land in question is an integral part of the land transferred to the CUY. In order to carry out this investigation, the judges had ordered the payment of 300 thousand francs to the charge of the CUY in order to remunerate the appointed expert.

Read also: Revealed: this is how the SDF signed his death sentence

Nearly two years later, said the judge rapporteur of the case during the hearing last Tuesday, the urban community did not pay the fee despite regular notification of the decision. Alone before the bar, Ms. Mounda's lawyer took over the assertions of the Ministry of Domains and his client before closing his intervention by calling for the rejection of the action initiated by the CUY. Clear and crisp information The panel of judges heard it in making its decision. The court noted the failure of the CUY, which rendered "impossible" the execution of the decision rendered on October 18, 2016 and decided to override this measure to go to examine the merits of its appeal. In the end, the judges decided to reject the denunciation as unfounded.


Source: camer.be