Adha ya Makanisa ya Kilokole

MANG'ONYI

MANG'ONYI

JF-Expert Member
Jun 14, 2013
383
310
Wadau nisaidieni kuna kanisa la kilokole hapa mtaani kwangu yaaani wanapiga muziki hadi usiku wa saa saa saba, na wanamka tena saa kumi alfajiri wanatoa spika nje. Nisaidieni nianzie wapi manake ni kero hasa.
 
Aseee hawa watu ni kero, i think wamevuka mipaka ya kuabudu. Ningekuwa na mamlaka makanisa yote ya walokole yameamia nje ya miji nchini nzima.
 
MANG'ONYI said:
Wadau nisaidieni kuna kanisa la kilokole hapa mtaani kwangu yaaani wanapiga muziki hadi usiku wa saa saa saba, na wanamka tena saa kumi alfajiri wanatoa spika nje. Nisaidieni nianzie wapi manake ni kero hasa.
Click to expand...
Anzia kwa serikali ya mtaa. Omba katazo la kelele.
 
MANG'ONYI said:
Wadau nisaidieni kuna kanisa la kilokole hapa mtaani kwangu yaaani wanapiga muziki hadi usiku wa saa saa saba, na wanamka tena saa kumi alfajiri wanatoa spika nje. Nisaidieni nianzie wapi manake ni kero hasa.
Click to expand...
funga king'ora kama kile cha garimoshi ukielekeze kanisa liliko.
wakianza mambo yao, wewe switch king'ora chako ON.
utaona wa kwanza kuomba "poo" atakuwa nani!
 
MANG'ONYI said:
Wadau nisaidieni kuna kanisa la kilokole hapa mtaani kwangu yaaani wanapiga muziki hadi usiku wa saa saa saba, na wanamka tena saa kumi alfajiri wanatoa spika nje. Nisaidieni nianzie wapi manake ni kero hasa.
Click to expand...
Pole mkuu
Option ni ujumuike nao au uhame



 
Hiyo ni ishu ndogo sana. Ila tatizo letu sisi Wanzania tu waoga sana kuzifuatilia haki zetu. Hapo ungempa taarifa kwa kiongozi wako wa mtaa angemaliza hilo tatizo mara moja.

Ila kwa ushauri tu inabidi kuwe na njia ya kuratibu haya makanisa. Binafsi naogopa kuingilia watu uhuru wao wa kuabudu, ila tusiwe huru sana mpaka tukawa kero kwa wale wasiokuwa na imani inayofanana na ya kwetu.

Majuzi nilisoma mahali kuwa adhana za waislamu na kengele za makanisani nazo zinawasumbua wasiohusika. Hivyo waislamu na wakristo wangetumia teknolojia ya kisasa zaidi kuitana kwenye ibada.
 
BEHOLD said:
Unaweza kufungua kesi ukitaka.
Click to expand...
Behold, angalia hii. Ni kwa vile huku hatuna uelewa wa sheria.

Case Summary: RAF Wittering
This case illustrates how the court deals with a noise nuisance: a serious disturbance that constitutes interference to the ordinary enjoyment of property. It highlights the legal remedies that you might expect to be available in a noise nuisance claim.

Dennis v Ministry of Defence
Case reported in (2003) Env. L.R 34

This case raises the issue of when sufficient public interest can be used in a defence to a claim of noise nuisance.

Facts
D (the claimants) owned and occupied an estate about two miles from RAF Wittering, an operational and training base for Harrier Jump Jets. D claimed that they suffered severe noise disturbance every time the Harrier pilots carried out training circuits: an average of 70 times a day. D alleged that the noise nuisance constituted a very serious interference with their enjoyment of their land and amounted to a violation of their fundamental human rights. D instituted judicial proceedings against the defendants, the Ministry of Defence, seeking a declaration and damages or in the alternative damages amounting to £10,000,000.

Although the MoD accepted that operations at the RAF Wittering caused noise and disturbance to D, they raised a defence that the Harrier training was undertaken for the public benefit and that they had prescriptive right over the land as D had bought their property at a time when RAF Wittering was already established.

Judgement
The court refused to grant the declaration sought but awarded D damages of £950,000, representing loss of capital value, past and future loss of use and past and future loss of amenity. It held that the noise from the Harrier jets amounted to a nuisance and constituted a serious interference with the claimants' enjoyment of their land. The court refused to treat the Harrier training as an ordinary use of land and held that although there was a public benefit to the continued training of Harrier pilots, the claimants should not be required to bear the cost of the public benefit. Appropriate damages were awarded and deemed as just satisfaction under the Section 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
 
Retired said:
Behold, angalia hii. Ni kwa vile huku hatuna uelewa wa sheria.

Case Summary: RAF Wittering
This case illustrates how the court deals with a noise nuisance: a serious disturbance that constitutes interference to the ordinary enjoyment of property. It highlights the legal remedies that you might expect to be available in a noise nuisance claim.

Dennis v Ministry of Defence
Case reported in (2003) Env. L.R 34

This case raises the issue of when sufficient public interest can be used in a defence to a claim of noise nuisance.

Facts
D (the claimants) owned and occupied an estate about two miles from RAF Wittering, an operational and training base for Harrier Jump Jets. D claimed that they suffered severe noise disturbance every time the Harrier pilots carried out training circuits: an average of 70 times a day. D alleged that the noise nuisance constituted a very serious interference with their enjoyment of their land and amounted to a violation of their fundamental human rights. D instituted judicial proceedings against the defendants, the Ministry of Defence, seeking a declaration and damages or in the alternative damages amounting to £10,000,000.

Although the MoD accepted that operations at the RAF Wittering caused noise and disturbance to D, they raised a defence that the Harrier training was undertaken for the public benefit and that they had prescriptive right over the land as D had bought their property at a time when RAF Wittering was already established.

Judgement
The court refused to grant the declaration sought but awarded D damages of £950,000, representing loss of capital value, past and future loss of use and past and future loss of amenity. It held that the noise from the Harrier jets amounted to a nuisance and constituted a serious interference with the claimants' enjoyment of their land. The court refused to treat the Harrier training as an ordinary use of land and held that although there was a public benefit to the continued training of Harrier pilots, the claimants should not be required to bear the cost of the public benefit. Appropriate damages were awarded and deemed as just satisfaction under the Section 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Click to expand...
Tanzania bado ni primitive when it comes to legal matters. Mahakimu na majaji watakimbia kesi za aina hii zikifunguliwa.
 
KWADWO ABIMBOLA said:
Tanzania bado ni primitive when it comes to legal matters. Mahakimu na majaji watakimbia kesi za aina hii zikifunguliwa.
Click to expand...
Hawatakimbia ila ni wavivu wa kusoma. Jaji akipata kesi kama hii, it is a matter of doing reseach on the topic from case laws in common law jurisdictions. You come out with the literature to enable you deal with similar cases justly!
 
Retired said:
Hawatakimbia ila ni wavivu wa kusoma. Jaji akipata kesi kama hii, it is a matter of doing reseach on the topic from case laws in common law jurisdictions. You come out with the literature to enable you deal with similar cases justly!
Click to expand...
Siyo huku ambapo tunafikiri kuwa sheria zinatungwa ili kuwawezesha watawala kutawala bila bugudha.

Huko wanakojua maana ya sheria watafanya hizo research. Ila huku ukisajili kesi inakuwa ya kwako na itapigwa tarehe mpaka utakufa utaiacha inaendelea.
 
KWADWO ABIMBOLA said:
Tanzania bado ni primitive when it comes to legal matters. Mahakimu na majaji watakimbia kesi za aina hii zikifunguliwa.
Click to expand...
Kama sharia yetu inampa mamlaka Mkurugenzi wa mashitaka kuamua either kesi fulani ifunguliwe au isifunguliwe, yaani anaamua tu
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar Discussions

Back
Top Bottom
Forums
New posts
Post thread
Back