20050823 TZHC Moshi

.U,...L'.UJ..L VVUJ.'\.L V.L" J....t:U•-...Jl'U•..IJ'I. .• !!.~-~ :~~~~~_>..:~; i:·~·-~.? ·,.~:/ ':;:,~:-- ~~-:.,~~:<:<>'.;;;,~;>::·,,,·,::· ·\····<··:1 '.::· j • i. ·.·.··,~,.-·: . .,. . ,·, ;: . ' .--The.!~ppellaiit:.,. rorie~:Ales1i1dc. Tra.'t¥i Mu~hi., had· bee:a .sued •by thi ~eSP?~,d~t·. : at M.~.~~- ~i~~y.:,Cd~t--in ~Origiriar di~_i'f.:¼9~·~;:,1?·f\'50 .Qf ~och for re:~every ~f:· .a: piece of';i.,land -.~ whi~lC:was :~ ,; :- d·etermizied'··1n. favo·tir .of: 'i.' t'he Respondent. .. . .. . i_ ••• ,' .. ' ; • - ·- • • • ·. • It· had been . ' ·. J :. - ~lege.d. py .the_ Respondent tp.at the .Appel.iruit ·had trespassed/1.rito··th~ ,suitiarid •. C}aving·be~fi"•>~dr1~~~d 7 by t'h/ . . • . . ' ·-·•.,:•~. a·;~~~i~~ ~.f. th~ _said t-r~r:_co~itt th~ -A~p~i:lan~- ·\. :. .·. ·:. -~·--r:-:•;-::'.-r,.·::·· .. _ .. . . . .:::-.,-. ~ · appeaJ.e-d'· to·:·'-fhe:; bistficf Court... of Hai in Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2003. The siiid' . _- , • .- . . . . . • • , - , .. . ·• :• • ( , . • ~ • • '. • I ,~ appea.Lwa,s dismissed· with costs by• tp.e said first. appe:t.lat~ ._court. . ·. . ·. -. - . . , ..· . :_.. :- , . -· .·• . ~- .._::·,..:_·_ ....,~.:.·~-..:~:r ." ;,_-.) .: _-:.-.-, ··:.; = (: _.~.• '· .. __. r:::;. ··: -.. _.-:. Having been ;•aggfi;~y,ed,-\:l;Y;° th~-.d:~t.isi6-n-·6f thJ·sa:ia' firs~ appellate court, the Appellant ·li~- .:.~ow:.:_;~~~~le,d,• t◊,·.·th-i~·;, court.- orr"the· fbifo\~i~g'. ~rounds as stated . . -~. · ...· . ; . . , . · ~-~--···.~,.. ·~- --~--~ .'; -;._ ·: · in his Pet 1 t 1.o;i of. AP-P~~l.:... , · ,· ., . , /c_:.:... · ...', ·, ... : :. · - :r . . . ... ...: ~:. ..:.-.- . .::. ·,.· ···:.· ~ . . . .- ~ . . 1. The .Distribt Appellate C6urt misditJcted ·h:t~s·elf i1/r_;;;_:{jJn~ to· consider about the . :all1=-gation s_et. izi' th~ g~6tihc!s of l!lppeal th~t the case which . ~ "b~~or,~ hj:s·· ·court:' ~s- ~ub-judidJ ·.to the fact . .:. . . .. '. . .. :~;t,fect it had : : .. :·. . . ·,· ,,_ a~J: ~ been....deci-<;led.. by sariot'her Primary cou:rt' duririg ·the· year I958 and - . ... . • : • ·:1 ,. • .·•. . . l . . .. • ~ thereafter Kat.ibu Ka-ta r~peiated tcr·su'6·~•;'judice ..the same subjected matter of the same· land during· the ·:year ±97f th~-s~11e e;.ror "which was committed by Primary· C~i.U'.t .q_f .,f1asam& vi-de 'Civ.il- .Gas~: -No~ 50/200~·... • ·.) . ! . '• '.·• • .;. .· . ' .. ·. • 2. The Distr::t~t ·Appellat·e ~~Rgi.strate coritinueci: to misdirect himself in to "wfit~.d~~m correct .3:ll'staternent I-·was t:i:--ying to state before • ' t i • fail:1:ng his court ·ror re&sons.which m~y be.known by hims~lf from a result now appears. :'i'J:t ._)3.it:;°•· 2 ~paragraph Judg~fuent 'which do~s not · di~close any of poin..t°.·o_f-,).a1-1 or-::i':ind:i.ngs arrived at and made· him .t·o dismiss the appeaJ.·:µi 2 ~ ! ' f l ~ ~ ~;f· ..li't00'P,?'110nt as appear in ~- fonJ]· Of a piece . I ~ ..... of p--:iper •.. •oe/2 _,,,.---- ____ ....---·--:--~-~-:---·----·~ ~------:--:"'·-.-;--··----:~- --~--- ..... ~.~'·:--, ~·-3-;·-Tifii'tI~-wns keeni-iifly intended tb ask the District App~llnte M~istrate 0 .. : -~ . ,· :~-- '···>~;_"_;...;',,"-:---,c.,:·•.·,;:~.<:.\:.:. ~- ·.. ·: .. __-,;.:~·· .• ·, __ _- . ·._.·· . . ·-•;. '· . . , . to issue court, p/der fi:ir the ·c:is_e to start a: fresn)?efora ~otl:ler . magistrate' as it~'·enabie ~r~per -iri~estiga.tion a.bout. the civ:il CD.Se -file .· ·determined... sam.e . . . sub.ject· .. . nin.tter of so.me ... l;m:d .~hiring .. . . .. . the year I958 and ~ .. . . .. . : . ; . :- . later reviewed by Katibu Kata in the-year 197.5 when KatibuKlita B.:µ-aza ·viewed the land :nid drawn. sketch plan_whtchis annexed to the grounds of ap~o.l but the Dist.rict Appello.t~ Ce>tirt ign~retl them. ,, ._ ..'' . - With the above three grounds of nppeal~ ~~e Appellant in his Petition of Appeal prayed to this court to order ( i) the case to start de novo before the tr.ial' ~ou•·, . . ·.-' ·~ . - - . . and (ii) an investigation about the olc,i cose carried out during the year I95~ :· and that of Kntfb;',,K'lta B~-'.lza ~'.l;;ie~t' out. during the -;fe:J.r !97?• . · . . :- .··_ _- ... --- . . . - . . ; .: . .- The Respondent h-:id •-filed a Reply: to -the Petitic;n of .Appeb:i in 'which/h~ ha,cF also raised three points of ~eliminnty Obje:ction. ·I hereby ,set en.it :the said· Reply:- n1. That - prior' th~ ·:he~ring of this Appo:J.l th~ ;R~~pc;n:fo~t \;,iil ~aise ~eli~in'.lry points ;;f law ' ,. ' ,· ' anci . ¥,ilL r_eqµest the ~ono~abic High Court· to ,•. ·:• i • • • • . -• • - . 7" ... • '. . . .. : ' • di~mi5:~ .tti~ App\cJ. wi tR,. G9.lf}~. and beth courts be,low; ....., · .:· ; , _ (q.) The Appeal _before this Court is !!lot ,.proper ,.:lS, it , was filed . by w~y . ~f. .. GROUNDS . .OF. . APPji;t1.L '. , inst.en.d .. . of .. ~ . fulTION. . OF APPEAL .- . therefore . violated . - . the.'..:mnndn~qry ; \/ __ . · '• ., ' :. provisions of section 25 (3) of Magistr:tte Court, l~ct No. ·2 ~f ·r9'84,' . · · . ' , ..... . _, ~ :· _: .(.b). _Th~ ,Ap_peal <3.lso_/:~~olp-_t.r<;l·,. the mr-,ndatory. provisions-· of,-•: • .o. XXXI e~ ,;Rµle .1:. (I)· qf'. _..GF.C Act No. 49,9f !966:,:that .. • • • '. • ·-- • .:: • i . • .. : . ~ ! • • • • Appeals to the High Court shall be preferred in the -·"--~--- --------- -- ·- . :r.f orm of MEMORANDUM OF APP~\L,· •• • . • .;·: t . . . • i .. . -. . .. ~ :.: :·,. • :: • (c) Tha Appeal is absolutely time barred as judgem~mt was d~'li ver~d :~n . ·101{0120~2 . .. - availed . . . t~: thti. Appellant". . :·; . .• ; on 7/1/2003 ru~d the Appeai, 'il.'.lS filed' in High Court on 20/2/2003 ond this w~ o.fiter,:'more"·fiia~ 33 days': elap.sed en~. no extension of time granted. · ·.·· •"•. ••• /3 '.I :I I .: t·'/. -·· -- ,'j_,) -~·-·.. .._\·.· -~-~..,_,_,___----~--- ... ', ... . - . ~ ...... ,. ~-- .: ~------~ ... ·----··---:----- ··-·--7- :,.\~· -~- [r\'_.- .. . . ··•. . : ·. ,, . ·2~·r.THAT ·-~!l'l'HOUT," PREJtJDiCE ·to:,; :., ; · . :: '· .:· · ,_. , \. · ~ ·· ..:·> \~J:ii::•ttf:O"r.estatcci,· the 1.Respondertt:1ir,. ~ -resl'~ct·- or O _..) 1 1i11~\~6ritents ,in!·par~:j i.of., ·t-lie :.~\ppea1:.:'-tlie. · _,_::- ...... ··t-~~d-ent-;~tate·.that there w~s ~o•·any ~issue of ! ,; ··, '. ~!i:ihe::'case·;;bc ·.RES.<JUDICli'rA.:dis61os.ed\·during,_ the· . .-·. '. l · l!'.~~i'~~:ess.-.;f ·the cMe ··~irfrPrima~y•-qo~t ..·•·.'The 0 i :: ' :.:, . r:~pond~-t. further, ·s~·at~ that,' :a11: ~~tt'ers b~f-0r~t .. Katibu i·Ka:b. ·if·;-My ,are .QUAS,,-JUDICIAI;. p:i-,oe~ings !- !,.. • , ·.::~ ), I ~- i • • ~.. •. • • • . ••.: ..,.-.~ ·and· not co.urt ·proceE":dings.· Ahmys.-'m<1t;te:ts . before . •.. •j:" {!·, ! t. ~•""·_ ~ . j _: ~ .- . . ··.,_ \them. are there for r.e~onciliation and· NOT. -for : _1 •,, ,•t' •~'. ••.,.. (_ J•., • ,- -! ~ ': ,~ ._ I I; .J ' • '• , . Adj:udicntiori, . -Furthermore ;no --any· copy of . . :. ,'j P.ttf •j•:_,_··.· _•.,;. i· .t! -~I ~ ;. :/. 1· 4~:}r~.rJ~.l ; 1 _'t, · j:udgeme?l,t i??- M~;auna· Civil :C~se No. 50/2002- .. 1 ' . . .... • L, ·. ~ . ;. } .. .11 • . • .. I • ., . : ', • • • i . r- ..... .. . .. I ... ,.·.t.~P.<J.e.r .-in. c_oµr_t. · , ·. '.;! . . / ,• ·' ; t/ I • . . 3. That '·:tri' '·respcc:t of' ithe ·conterits ~n. j,aru 2 of 0 the 'Appe'a1· thi Respohderit state that the matt~r ,-b~fore Dist':ri\::t Court. was an Appeal and not n. ~ • -:-t • ._w...;, J>. •,l,._,~ ---... " , ~ .. __ .~ matter of hearing. of the. case. The judgem0nt ... : ·~-:..~ _.- ·.; ' ·.. : ~ .. ~ :..--: ·~ : ' . . . ... ..... . .. ' -: -, .... •·.•· ~-- .~ ;'of' the District .Court :is a r~ry concise judgement. z~•,i:_,i4iti_rJ/?d:,1..i,;d.,(.:i ~-,n_::,J~'fr.::..:"~:.~·· :4 ~-i CTY" 49· ,f I966 QO,a.l'J.:V.,V-1 e, ,..,:o.y.,,.y--o~-.HUJ.e u~ S:V O •· , -cfRt,:· j\\d~'e~&hf· c6nt"6.in:s• tiJ.f!'~lhtt lo1';-&ittrmka- 0 . ,'~,:,~~,~..--. ,.3 ..-,,i;;;,- ·;~~'.:, j·.-, .., -~·.. -._. ·-~~~ •.,~\ ;,; 10 • . Y,;· _, -~ ➔ •·:, , • . Jion,·. the. 'de,cis'ion ''th&reoh atid :r'eascns' f6,r such <ct~1isf6it~n-i~ TJ;f' ~\'pptiihni'\.}fu\t'' thi Ai~tnkii:'¥: .f 1 'm~{si;ilte:1,to~ ~ttf },thtiiiMtnt·H{~ '~iiy1'k~' ~hld ' :J-;-~t'····· ,:,., -.'1.i:. ,....,..;,:':" . . . .,_-f' f~i ~1.; ·,;.·...... :-~ • )-,r~; ('t •, ! ··-.- ·J.;'ike~8!1d .:not' the: way the magi'sl:rate· deems' fit.~· .,,,;:•1J-~~;<i::.,.l:.··~!:. fu~.t~_t7-!:•.i'r ·w~~;;~t~·-:· tt1;~.t- . .- ..; l 1r:,:tt_t,Jr:: · b,1r . -rr~ · 4 ~·: .T-h~i;_;· :~ --~r·egarcs · ·to);~ •'.,t .6! ,fhei. 'A.p!)ea:lrit-he'....1. i,~:,,; . . : . • 1;..·~ .-· . • . . . Re·sponclent·, _avers- th.::l.t· thc:re was-·no~; oi-d0e'r::ifor,-:1~,...,..,.,;. -.the . . -c~e.. t9;,be, heard··oe·,:novb~-:t . . . ,, . :Et:, .. is:,hot}.a '.°vT. , pX?~-q~ipali ..of1J.!;t·w.·;or:\:proper.· tl.>" any/ panti inf a c~e t~i.:_expeict the ~burt, . to.i.:-issui':tJ.:;;n certi:iinf';Ol'.'<fer 8.f3 l l ~. ; ... :_:;~':··: :\·.. ; · . : the·;,'Raspond~t·\-k-"':,S intending_ the court to o~ei;-: the cnse to be heard afresh. All th& times court :. :~ ~ 1y•• ~ r - f• •~ I t,.. -: ~• ' f' '? •- • ..,:. l'7., ', .,. ' ! ~" /~ ',."1 t• •:') l , '; . :'-• orti·er_ed ~·a_ses ·fo _he_ -~e~a. ·a·~·_'J.'.loVo~~-~f t~e: ·Appellate, c'6urt·· I&kihg' •\ii~ :·'h~ing ~l 1th'e A~p~al: 'i.dil' ta~t~ct ;·. ~... r ..i . ~ }.;,:-::;-':._.rt~~ - ,.,,.. ....,., . . -~-· ·1 ·..... i - !,1-t- . some -vi tru.· poih'ts ·.or ·cv'idence ·not ·reccirdcd 'or . i~ • • ··1 .:' -:,.,. i···l-·'f'• ..., .... ·.::, ..~--:~ .. },·~•. .-==-,,.·•.~ ......~ •t. , .: .... ,p ·~· . . . ~ .. ommftted'·during··the 'proces·s ··or th~-··c3s\:: ':tri'·th'e •('[~(~,!. . .;.. •. , . ~ •• :t 1 _tfi0:1\J~r:r·:,1hJ'ifo{~Uariti 'ks.: J'~plt-s'id :f~\;dkiJ-it .. -.~ _ ,.;)... !:.:.=-, __ r_;-:.·,,i....,... .:.J-~f:. ·•1_,· .. ~ . .i- rv•;:1.... :i.-:,t,l,.:.·: •r-.r. . ::_ ... ·: ~ ! .• /•,: A"'. h~f~o~~l.'fi~~~tig'b.'t'ions~·~~!_o~l)~_e·_:~i~~e_d. ¥1s'' c¼e 1 dQ;i~M\it~-~-: Jlod~~~t; ;1f ·;h~· -~;J~t:biiI. riJ1:' ~id\thf),,-.~.-. ,~~ii~r~~i~{/, ;t'.(~- ·:~/? 1~\', ,_ -'./: '::, f:, ·-:. ,,,' 1\..i;:,· 't .-·.. ~:-.,: .' 't.\\. 1,:;,, _;i~i·:-;·\.' \;-;./4.,.:'/ ·; :. , ':.:. · 'l-l 1;. ~·L - ' { .-· :·! • .~:. .. , •· •~ .,; • ,.. . • ,," •t:. t •. ·•~,':, ·.•... ~ 1'\;(-_({; ; . !}. 4- . " ..... ,-- ••. .,_ - ·::. ' •- ,. . .. ";'. ..,. ' t ',· : .•~1 .;.. • ~ ·- -' ". • ~ ~½;·/. \[-~) : '" .r~. _.,, .·•. ; '..· ~~ti~u _l(nta ~~e'..)~9t-·::a~ -~~~1:J-~~P?-~~~~/~q/;•ev;~~w:•. · . . . " .,. ~- .·. . -.-. ; • . . r- ..... , :. . ... "(. ~·: .• > . :., "' .:..:- : . :J ...:. ... ••.... .·· .:~our;t .. _jJ;?ge~en~~ ·t.he_~fPl'.';~. ;,!"~P.--~ t~-~ · ~.EP.el~t?.ntJ[~-~-~- .: :t . •;·· : ~f .Jel~irift~~:)~~:~, _:~9 :!?Jel)~;: f~;~.-·)i?r·/~~:r~/i~.fo~.:. -·· . ... allegations.'· ·.JJo¢tiln-aate, .• llOt .ten~d in'.: cch1rt, .during:·:· ·.. · ·_;· . ·_: :,.-.·~.-~.:. :·:~-:_~'-·.~.--;.:_t_·._.e_,:~_:_::..·:,_f.-,•.-.;.i~--.·~-~-t_. -:_··:. ·.~ __ •:c.:_,,;,.,;;~ ;9\ ~~i:,,~ibl~ at the . ,, . . . .-----. -·~:. <t<~;~-:·:~::::.~:·=~- - ~- -~- -· ::.... ·, . ·. . ;...,~"]f:··'friaf·~~; 'rergiird~.: ~/;,_··'-4\o'i 'the: ·,\·ppe~l :··tha ~',.,;·~.,.:~:;:, ·: ·, t?espond~nt' ·state '-th::tt'. AppJ\6atio~ · foitthe co.se.; to .f;;,,·_ '. ·, ·.·"'· . . ·: _> ... ~-:-.• -.· ~:.. ,· . he ·heard· de;..novo is·· not- a grollhd of, Appenl ·.an;d ,such • .., . ' i • ' • [ ,.· . •• "~ -- • "': . . f . • . • .- • . . .. 'appli'cition does. I'l:o·t ·iri.di'ccite that ,justice ia;· this C . . . . . .:•_.:··. .. ~. ·~. _. -:._.,•.' '·~i . - :· _;. . ~: . . , cass- wn,s· defen.t1:,d.: I t is- a. matter of 1l~w·-C:l.Ilct, u m;:i.tter of_ prac{i.se :that _the co~t [wi~l '9rde;. . .· . . . - :- .~ . , ·• _- a··co.seif~\;· . ~. . :- ?. , .- he~<:i . _de . . n_oyo_ .when. . fj,i;i.ds·,t!'iat ·. . . poten:tin.1·:'·av.id~n.<;.e_ . .. or. '.• do_cument .was. no-t;° recorde<:i or not rece~yed which in. • . •: •••. r! ~ ,( • •, . the instant -case wn:s not. . · . . ,._. ~ . . .- . . . . .- .. : . ·_. ... : ::. . . . . . ·_ - .. .. :.: . _ ..·- &.:·TM.t ·fn rt'}st)ect ·of the c·oht~n'ts of, pe.tp.· ;5 of .the . ,.~·· Apf:;'e~ th~ R~slJO.~den{. ;e~~~tecfly_ to· ·w49J; :·n~~~t-~d . .. . . .. ·- . • . • •. , ! . • . in •p,ir.i 1 of this Reply • ~ •• J ;• .- • 0 ,. :.i ··, ; •• . .• : . _. "":··.- .... 7. ·T_hr:it the,· AppeiiD.nf ha~- tot°iUly. f~ilea to' :ddvruice .. Dri.y s~b~to.nti~l. ~rounds of Appe~l \o· in{ite·' .· this . '. -· i . '. .-. - .. : . ~ . !' <. Hon0uro.ble Court to eriterfere with the subordinc-1.te courts therefor~ th.; Resporiclent pt3.YS th.,.t: the "":',.· AppGal.b0 di~~issed ...ri'.th costs in this court and beth courts below!'...: - On 27/4/20f/5, by cons apt this ;~frt:-o-r~~rtd t·h~ ·, parties to dispose the C, appeD.l by way of 'writtep· submissio'ns. ·-:&:~ .-expeet.dd .the .'.Respondent cover~d the t preliminary objectiqn_s ;i.n h:LS sub;,11ssion~- Md-.t~e A·pj;;iia."lt responded to them. mh his rejo1nder submis~ion~~ : N~'t~§J.1yJ if. ·the pre~im;i.hn.ry objections are uph~ld by this c.ot;;\, · .the- c.p:g~q.l 6Y:: . ·the . f~ppellant . . . w~ll.:_co],.lapse, . . h,mce I need ' to considet-; :and determine them first. be.fore proceeding.· wi:t;h ..the substantive . : .. appeal.·· · ... :, · .. ·· . The first ·prel1mino.l;"y objechon is thnt -th~··appeal h.::1.s violated Section 25 (3) of the Mogistr!ltes Court1:3 Act~ ±985 as it ·hiis ~~en filed by wn.y of n@rounds of·Appeai" instead·of by way of. "Petitio:ri·of:A.ppeal~i as mo.ndato:tily . •• •. •• '• • • , , . ' , • ''. • •, • • •. •• ' "/•, '. • • ., ' • • l required by the saic.<:.a~cticir:i.· . The_ Respon~~nt ii:f his ·suornission just rep1:::nted • ._ ., ; • ~• ,: • l • ·• • • \~; : ' the said position.- ..t / ..., ....... ·.•. _.,._f :· ~.. _:=--: .-:•-; -.;. . )~r.:~~::,:: on. th.e 6.th;.;r. h:ru:Ld, th~ A.ppeJ..:lruit, in his ·~ubmission on the sa.id objection ·replied 'f. :''. .( ,th;f:;{he appe~:·h~,}~e~. fiJ~d: by:: the- fo;m of. :1Mem6~art~um of Appca1H but in his ::view ·this does not cause Justice to- b& defeated• In my considered view, it is ..:.··, tru~ as·subm':i.tt~d by th.i.R~spo_ndent.that und~r S~ctiqn 2, (3).of th.e'i•-iagistro.tes C~urts Act, I984\very ap~eai; t-o.,~h·e High C6urt fr;ni the Distr_ict' Court is ..... ,:., I• required to b~ by ·way of a !)et_ition•.. ~However;: ~o sp€:cifi~ form;_t has. been p:;ro'Vid~d for a I?atition of appeal ..to distinguish it s;~ :fro~ a. :momorandum of 1 ·. of appes.ii:·or.l<ih~t.the Ap:~Jtllruit.has' temed ' 1Gro~d~:-of Appeo.1:: •. Wh~t is i~rtt\h-t ·±n .. . . .. ,•. : . . .· . . ·~i co~~i~~reci, ~iew is, to state or. particula.rise the grounds of . ~ ·• ./ ; . ·. . '\ appeal ':by the Appell£U1t whether it is in a 11peti tionH ·or. i;memorandumH or . som~th.ing: to .th&. effect •. 'I'hitsc-ia much more sc·in' the pr~_e._al_ where the · App~llartt is a mere lc)-yma.p., . ·. This,.Pr~limihr.iry ~hjectio~ is her&by ove;ruled.., ().· ,: ·... ::'·.['he second ·praliminary ·;bj~ction .:J.lleges that the: appE:al violates the mandatory provisions'• of Order XXX1X rule 1 (1); of the Civil Procedure Code·,. ·· ·;, I96i tha.t appeals'to th6. .'High Co~t sho.J.l _be pr.::ferred in the form of a . 'm&~orandum of rippeal}~nd no~ o~herwise •. -th~ . ~cispondent in his- submission "Ji:as m~r~ty_r,epeated.·the said objection. Th~ Ayi~~{iant hns rt)sponded to this :pbint of preliminar/ ~bjection in his sJbm{s~i'bn tl~at app0.nls to• the High Court ~e_ ~-;~~red by:~~~~ the. MCJ\.,· I984 arid. the CFC* I966. HowE:).yer, it is common ' .. . know~ed.€ie· ~hat _app~~~.,p.rig~n:1ting :rr6m Prim~y Courts ,su~b., '-'.1S · this one are b; :the Magistrilt,es'' 'Courts- Act:,. I984 and not :the Civil Procedure Act,. 0 0 r_'goverri~d ·. I966L It follows,_ ther~f;ore, that i'f cannot 'be said that this n.ppeal violates . ' Ordef ~xri r:D-e 1 (1):. . ()f. th~ Ci~il P.rocedure: Cod·e·, ~966, because the. said '' p~oJision .of .,la.w docs n~t apply· to appeals ',.Jriginn:~ing from th0 Primary Court 11.~- -:the ~resent :a~pE:al• ·This preliminniS, obj action h.:1s .no merit and it is hereby.overruled. Th~-third preliminary objection is that the appeal is ribsolutely time parred a,s. judgement wns deliverE:d on 30/10/2002 availed .to the ,'\.ppel~ant on 7/1/2o03 and ..tna- Appec'.;ti ~rcts fil,.;,d in tha High Court on·.20/2/2003 which was after .. more than 33 days .h1;,d ·ein.psec:f without· 1;xtension of time beirnt. grnnted: . Again· the Respondent . . merely'· reiter::tted the , .. said : .. objection in his submission~ In his reply,_ Plf_ Appellant' contended th.:J:t the appeal was not time bnrred because a ,, copy of the judgement- ·was •c:\r.i:Lled 'to the Appellrui.t vide r~~R. VO rfo: 17084238 of 22/01/2003 and the appeal was filed on the same day of 22/01/2003. vide ERV. 17o84239 at Hai Distri<::_t. Oou.rt, tl;le first appBllate court •. He contended further that this fell squarely - :within Sectiori.·25·(3) of the. Magistrate$'. . ... Courts Act, 1984. ,.He 8:~ded further that under Part· ±t, Rule· of the Lnw of Limitation Act No •. 10 ._?f I971 the-.time tofile an appeal 'is 45 days hence if the appeal was "fit~cI after 33 days hnd elapsed it was within the time allowed by law ... .I - ·~-·.. ...... ~ ~ , He also adds in his submi.ssiq_n.:t1w.t under the .said provision_ of lcw 1 appears under the Civil Procedure Code, I966 ar~ 'to·be made.within.90 -: . . days• ~ ' l ff.iving considered the su.bmissions- of both pa.:rties on the th~rd. preliminary l I . objEection, I wish to~:·std~e from oUt.f',let _th,?a.t the appeal ~s I have ectrl:l.0; stited l' .· ts·g;"overned by the..proviiions cif th~ i.>1agi$trlii:es' ·co~ti;, _A~t, I984 and not, the· ' · .· :, <cfvil··Pr;cedlfte Cod;/ J:966 •.'rhe ap1,lic;ble Bectio~ i-~ t·e~tion :25 (3).., or'the . . . • . .. , . . , : .. ·, ''} ~ ' \ •: • • . •. t: T ~ _. ,,/' '• • -'Magistrates ddurts 'Act~- 1985 wp.ic)l' provides thc..t a.ii ·app~al fron1 a :district, court . . . -~ :: . . . . . : .. . . . .•· •: .... ,.,} .. . . ~ ·:. . ..- .' . ,: . . .· .' to the High Court is to be.- filEd within . tl:!irty {30) days. . '.l .This mean:;; . . ~hit -. . 'part II of the Law of. Limi to,tion_:~ t971 ._as statJq. 'qy 'th~- l'.1;>pelin~t- !Rn ~i~ ; ·':· · submi~~-io~ doe~ not app:t'y to thi~(appen.l •.. The. r'ecOr~: of the·- {trst. -_a;pellat~ l I court shows that t':ne judg.ement wcls deliv&c;:d on 30/10/2002 and. was ce:rt_ifieq on 7/1/2003 n.nd a co.py of :the s:tme .;,.,;;,'s su;pl{ed to{~4~- A~pe;ti,mt on. 22/1/2003 . . · .. , ••. . . .... ·: ·,.::-· . {'.;•, . ,. .·. . . ' . '. . vid~ ERV No. 17084238 . mid he filed . . the app&o.l . vide t·.: the said. court on. the same dat·e of 22/1/2003 vide ERV. No• 17084239. Jn the premise, it is no.t tr.tie that 33 days ho.d elapsed .-as· !ll-leged by th:e R~sp;ndent in the ,prdliminary objection. :i:t is trite. law thn.tthe time spent for-obtaining a copy_ of·judgem0nt is .~. excluded when time limit is cofuputed fo~. purposes of filing an· appeal within· t;he_ time :i;,>rovft.ded b;y:, the lr-l.w. .I :find· nnd ]1old that the appeal was filed within time · hwzee · the pr~liminary objeqtion has no .merit, it is accordir.J.11Y overruled~ Having d_isposed the ci.bove ·named preiimina'ry ohjections ~-. I now proceed . ' . to consider .. ' "3.!ld determine the ·grounds of app1::cU filed by. the Appellant.; · In -~is, ~ubmission in. support of th~- gx,,~ds <:if n:ppe~1,· t-h~ Appellant con:tends tl}?l,t Jhe C,'lse W(:\S r&sjudicSte a~d -:s'ub-judice i~ that it had alrea.dy be~P. d~cided . .. . . ' . ·. . - : .. . by a.no.the.I'- primnry court .in I958 ·mid the 's<1me! acted upon~ by K'.at:i. b-µ Kata in • r975. He contended that in !958, 'ti 'ctisnut~' ar·ose over the disputed piece. of . 6 • • .,._ • land between 'himself and one- -Zab¢lon · Nya.mafu wh; he: alleged th:,:i_t he hud ·. ;, " exchnnged his piece of lnnd wfth h:i.n1 but later on eneronched two spaces on· to the same land hence l.:,adin~,1.'Cri'!1in~l ca. se No. 33 of I958 in Masamc. .Primary Court-. ·. He qon tended further th::i, t the sald z,:-,,blon· Ny9-mMU to.Cs· fined ·shs, 20/= by the Elaidi court which he all,~~e,q.\.i,s confi~ed by E:xhibi:t 1·:n2:: tendered iri , I '.• ~ I . the· t;r:ial court. He further contend.ed fo his subrnissio.n that th~ :R~s~ndent .· in his evi(i}ence at the trial cour~ h,nd: eontend,ep:, that he h:,,d purch~ed the disputed piece of land from one Mfungomalj. -bu_t .·d.;i.d not ·tender nny docrnnerit to suppdrt the said position. He, the Appellant in :.his_.::stib.mission states the measurements an~ +,i,,., pel'Sons bouncw.ring · th~ alleged ,di.1:,puted piece of land as follows:-·. (a) North i~ ~O :r::>aces - Mzee Ndewingii (b) East is 140 paces_ -.Augustino Ulomi. (c) west' is 130 pa.s_es_ - Zabolon Nyamo.fu · (d) South is 35 paces~ Mfungwa~~li Kisarika. · I· •. · , · ' I ,, • ,- H~ contended in his ~~bmissiori that' wh~n tho trial magistr4te risi ted locus. in .. -:. . •. . . . .. . •. . . " ;i! . ; . .... . : • :~'; . .. . • . ~"': ; .', -.:· . ' .. quo. found the-~EJ' measurements· hut stili in its-~i.sion d9C~ tb.G- di.8-put.ed lrmdto,be that of the Res~rident which decision was allegedly against the · . , ,_p.atUI'al justice, ·'human rights and constitutionai right ·because. the .R~spondent 0 ', ' did not describe the .ei~e and boundat':ie~ of the disp~tedar~3. t~'" thf; :t:rfoJ. court · ,,during . .. the_ . . . .s,a~d- . .. visit. .of locus· in q_uo., He contended further in th~ ·~c).id subTllisision. ;that in the trial court the Respondent had failed to prove l:iis case on the bo..lo.nco.: of probabilith,s, .he thorefore p;;.a:yed to this court to al.lolAf th<;: appeal with costs in this co'U'i't and in tht:J two courts below. Or(th:e·other_hn...'1.d, the Respond~nt in his submission :vehemently.opposed the submission of the Appullant that the case at _the tr::i.al court was resjudioo.ta and I([) sub-judice. He contended tho.t t~'e A~pellq.nt at the trial .court did. hot tender copy of-judgement of the alleged previo&s case to prove that the dispute had alread;r been· n.djucated by another primary court nnd further .that the matter before Katibu Kata·was for reconciliation Md. not for adjucation and its outcome was merely quasidudicial proceedings and not oth8rwise,., .The Respondent in his .submi'ssiorf:·fJOnten<l~d furth'"r that the Appellant had encroached,. the ci':t~puted land by 30 p~ces in length and 7 paces. in width in which . the AppellD.:Ilt harvested the Respondents c1_:o-ps 3.11d destroyed· the boundnry. As the ~espondent' testified in the tri:'l~ :court,: he submitted that he -referred the .. matt~r to the. Ward Executive Of:fic~r. but the Appellant. turned violet throwing . stones to the Respon~lent and those who were present hepce. no reconciliation. was reached arid the /\.ppello.nt had no choice_ but to_ file -his claim. at the trial I.'._ court.·.· He contended further in his submission that at ~he trial co_u:rt t~se witnesses :tes,tified in support ·Of his ~ase including )?auio Mwangn, (S_M~2) the person who sold the disputed land to him; E.liakimu Lemn (.sivI.3), the person who was cultivating the disputed land for the p::i.st 30 y~o.rs; • and Ona.el Slan. (SM.4), the ward Executive Officer who chaired the Conciliatory meeting i~ which the Appellant turned violet. He further. con.tended in his submission thbt the trial court hnd visited the scene tmd. drew Ske;~ch plan and that the · said trial court · in its judgement condih.uded th~t it~was the Appellant who had trespo.ssed into the disputed land measuring 30 paces in length and 7 p:i.ces in widtho He therefore contended that the aforesaid position ~hows that the Respondent at the trial court had proved his·case on the balance•of probo.bi:).ities hence the trial court :entered judgement in his favour. -- '.8 He further conten'ded in his ·submiss{cm· that. the Appellant was:-not satisfied with.the decision of the trial court.ruid appealed.to the Distr:lct Court·9ut the ,s~ig: cour~ having studied ·'the eV'id.ehce adduced. b/ 'th:e ·pc.,:;ti-~s ~~- t~e tri~ C0.1,lrt ' .,:..a.nd· .., . . .~. t~:·deC:i'fiwR .. . ,of . tie:·,:·aaid c'.o;,itt-·:i.-t' . d{sm:t'ss'eci··'th~ ~p~;nf-~~~~-e .. . .. . ·-,· 'i~ ;A;pe~larit .. . . lost th'e'.soid'appeal 'and:ha~ . now bref~rred this second'~ppeal • . .- b~fore ·1·· thie court. ·: •... ,. . . Howe;er. the Respondent' contends . in 'his ~ubmi.ssion . , ::;: ·. in: this . that . .appca;L r. ·':. - _before , .Jh~~ .court, the _!tppella.-it hos fa,il~d :to advance any substantial ground o.f appea1 to invite this court to ent.eifere and after the <lec.isions' of tl1~ subordinnte collrts,·he therefore prayed to this·cou~~-to_dismiss tht1 app0~l with costs.as i;t; is misco:;icei voc;l .and devoid of merit;. In hi$ rejoind'~r submi~-sion,: the J\ppell3rit, as reg::trd:s the submission- ~f . the Respondent that he (the _;:\.pp1:;ilan-t;) .did not tender copy of the jl,l.dg;emerit of the n.lleg~d G;imi~al C.3.Se No~ 33/I956, he sub'llitte.d . ·., .that . the . sn.~d copy of '\ · j1;1dgenient' was not availed to him and that on his follow. up he foUot:d __ that 'the court records including the ,?<-'-icl. judge.rrient hnd been d;~t~~y,~a; .by· o.nts, ns if was a long time_ca?e and. that h,() only.ramained witha certifioate evidencifig his occupancy of:,.the suitland- which he hc.d tender.ad ::1s an Exhibit'· at' th? tr-ial court. As regards-theR~spondent•s submis$ion that he purchased th0 disputed land from Paulo. Mwanga (SM.2), the .:\.ppblia11t .. _contended that it wa_s hot true as the said Paulo Mwanga was. not· a neighbour to ·the di~pil.ted land.,.; fls regards - .... . . .,. ,,. the.J~es:pondents submission "-th~t the trial court hnd visited the disputed land and dre_~ Jl ske_tch map and. de.terrnined the· dispute in favour ·of the Respondent. the Appellant responded that th!F tri;:d court did riot visit _the disputvd limd . and thpt ;i.. t dr_ew .the sketch map· to defeat· justice i:md :it arrivi::d. at a very please _, · discri_minative judgement to . > the Respondent and not on' th~ strengh of \ th€/ -~vidence adduced at· the trinl ccurt including the documents tE:mdered in evide~9_E} by the. Appello.nt. ·rre· prayed to this court to allow .the appenl: wi t'l:l costs _in this court andt:t.e: courts below. I. have carefully considered the submissions of both pa:rtic:s in this ·appeal·• as we'll. c;l.S the- record of:: ~he. both courts below inclusive o·f. their: ·proceedings and juclgemen_ts_. ThEl . _,rriatn. . ·:.. issuas that a,ri~e j:µdg:i.ng from the, grounds of ;:tppeal filed by the Appellant and the submission of the parties ·bE:fore this·court are as follows:.- the (1)Whether in.Yi~w of/1\.ppellnnts previous decided case· (referred to as Criminal.J~as~ No. 33 9f,'~958'),.on the' dts9utsd 12.nd·, the case· fiied by the Responde~~ in. the trd.al court,was res.· judicata·o.nd· at the same time sub-judice in view of the.\ transac:t;,ion}:i,eld bi::fore.:Kafibu J(ab'.. fu ;r.975·_•. •• . /9 .. . ....... ·-·.' (2) . . Whether . .. '. the . juctge,ment_of ... . . . i;he first appellate magistrnte·does not __disclose :~int9 ,9f l~.w. or findings thnt l~d to th~ dismissal of the_ t'..p:pellant 1 s .?-PJ;},1;1111 fai _t,ha.: f_irl3t appe:liate Court. · · · _··-.;::,..', .. (3) ~fh8t'her thr~ tri1D. court clid o·r did not mo.ke a visit ,to the disputed lMd t,md wheth8r the s,ketch map dp:::wn by .th,:, trial court and the 'dec·ision grrived at· by _it wis m~de to ple~se the Respondent and>,-defeat - · : . '; - :·- • '·.,. · ·( 4) iJJhuth~r ·the' R9spondm1t. ~Iid or. did. no't prove his case at the trial · court ·6n tho bn:lr.mce_ of pro.pa,bilitit:s ns required by tht: lnw. . . . (5) Whethg.:r the first npp,.:;llat0.'court an_d this, cour~ eo'i.j:ld order the case I., - -at the· trio.l court to start: de novo· anj order. an investi,<sn.tion to be made about the AppelL'ints all 1::r.;0d cr~mihal case decided in 1958 an:a 0 tha trnnsaction made at Kati]?u I;:at~ in' 1975. The first issue is whether. the case before the trial courtwns res juclicata and sub-judice. •rhe .Appf.lllnnt, in his rippeul. before this court c.n<l in the first appellate court urgii"ed .in hi:s subt!]ission that there was a. prevtous decision by . ·- 1958 to wit in C~iminilCase Nao 33 of 1958 between him and another court in . one Zabl~ri .s/o Ny~n:f'.u in resp(:Ct Q.f the Ji1;,puted ;i.a.nct iri which the i~ppeilant w~n: and which matter w:is also pl:1c:ed beford KatibJ° Kata in I975a. _The Respondent . . prove· that the .case in his submission contended. that thd .t.\ppellant in the trial court had fniled to- . was re.s judica~a a.she did not tendE:r . . . . oopy of th8 judgement of the case which he alle~ed that. the 1.natter. W/3.p ,decided previ0usly by another · court_..and the v1a.tter before· Kati bu Kri_tn wn~ n;f, sub:..ju,-lice a.s·. proc::eedings before . {atibu Kata aI_"O not judici~l proce~:J~!l~S but m-::rely quasi-j~dfcial procee~i~g-s'! . . (.__ - In my considered view, l _quite agree with· t:he i;nibmission .of th& n,.,-spondent thnt \ :, . -, . . -. . . : . . ':: . : . . , -~- ' . . . th~ App~llant ,,has failed ·to establish ,th::rt the. C(:1$~ before t:tie triD. l court between him and the Respondent was res jud~cr.,.t3. 1 He _had not tender?d the decision or judgc,nent -of the previous ·CD.Se d.t the tr_i.'.31 cd"urt to establish thnt. the :5a~d . . ,. . . . ; ' ~ ~ alleged~ case by anoth~r court· ,related ·to t~o sam0 disput,ed piece of lanct. Further, it appears from the submissi~n of. the Appellant h'i-msc1f thit :th~ .- . . . t :· ,; :·-~. : . - . .. . ~- ,.. . . 7 • - . -· • •• • ' , · •. alleged previous cas,e between him ::1..rid thi:; ~fetid Z-::i.blon s/o Nyamafu wits a Crim_ino.l case a.nd wherens bis ... · · case .at the tricl co'urt be'tween .himself .:ind .the 1\ppell8.J.-it was -n. Civil one. Now, the m0nnir:.g.of -Res judie'\ta is givon under R;le 11- of° the Magistrntes' Courts (Civil Procedure. in Primary Courts) Rules as follows:- 1111_. Where in any proc0eding before n court, th,:: court is- satisfied that any issue between the parties has alrec:i.dy been decided t>y the court or by any other court of competent jur;isdictioi;i in another proceeding between the same p-3.rties, the court shall not try the issue but shall try the other issues, if any, involved in the proceeding 1: . '·.. ·:::: .. ,. . . •~/ . --~· , ' . ··~·· r• ........... ~ . - ~ . . . ' . . In my considered vi~w, tha_AJ;?pellant•s submis 9 i:6n .611; ~es judica:ta <foes not meet what is ata~ed in t~~ .abate pr6vision, :of the Ja~ -~9 bri~g it. within the m.eaning of Res jzj,di.cate.. , ~he all,eg~d cr,iminru. casa decid-ad prev~ously was be~we~n the Appellant . and· .·the s-~id 1 zabldh 1s/o .. Nyrunafu _. q.,nq, .. - not ' between .. . the i'\pi)el~arit . '~d- the 1 Respondent at the.trial bo~t"'and tha.>,·issues· w(:;re d~ff,erent 'issu~s ribt the ·same issues 11 Th~r~fore; I fihd:::nnG! ·ha.lg ,.tha·t the conten.tio~ ·of ,the· ·App~llfiit· '.that the case at the trial cour:t was res judico.h{ ·11.;~: n·o hiirit. As to the ¢ont~tioh that the case W11$ sub-Judice· 'for the.: transaction_ bdore_ thG_ Ko.tibu KD:tq., in 1975. In my consif-J.ered ·v•fow, 1f· the, mntt.ei:-.·, was concluded .bf·a Prim6i-y c9urt _in l958, it could not follow thn.t·the same matter. could. be.-sub-judice b~fore a Kati.bu . Kata in I9'7,5 as the mutter ,should he t:1ken to q,ave been f:innlly, conclude,) by • the alleged court.; Judging from :what the .Appell~1t . . testifi8d tho trial ..•· in I • court, that ... V Hffakimu ·ali~wtmdikiq; J(0 tib.u I(ati··kuap,gP.li9.- ,sham,bq __ hilo, Kati bu K-':l.ta alibi~niia kunntnlia ,iw. kuku~a kweli ameine;ilia na Mzee· Znb/lon ·a1it01.o.ta foini shs.2000/:o na debe la pombe na' rrrpak,1. uk...~ekebishwa 1971 ~-n In my considered view the above· evidence, 0f the_. Appellant at the trial court simply denotes that tl:).& matter,:. was s:er-rt to K.p,t;ibu Kata f~r -,xccution. and1 . riot for further determination hel'l:CG' the contention of t~e Ap;~iL:mt thnt tht? rri:,tter was . . sub-judice before the Katibu I\'.lt/i hne;· no'. merit, . !: do find and hold, In sum, · ther:fore 1 the first ground ~f Appeal .. h;1s:'no .· miitito ~ .The second gro.und ,of a1~pe;l and. thnt is th0 second issue is that tht :.cteeision of trie first appellate tmlgistro:te does not. ~isdio:se pain-ts o/ l~w or findings, tha.t led him to dis•niss:.th.e Lppellant's cippe0.l before the first appellate court. The Appellant · did not_ canvass this ground of appe:il. in his_: s·upmissfo~.' Howev.:,:r,, . the Respondent in his .Reply.to the_Petition of Appea,l had contended that the judgement of the first appellate court. w,:is a very concis? judgement as provided for under Order xx rule 4 of . the Civii . Ffocedure Code,,I966 as it contaµis all points for determinntion 1 - the ~- - decision . ... ·thereon and· teasons ~ . for such dr;cisiori. •. It may 'o,;._,rz:-~.:-tl.y be so, but the, n:ppec.1-j.n,, the present· ,md~ter is'. _governed, by the Magistrates'· Courts Act·. I~84 nnd ~ot,• th~ 'Ci;i·i. J?roc~d~;e Cod et !966 hence Order xx rule 4 of ~he,Oivil~oced~~:c6>de,·~,966•-~-': . ·.... , .. _.., - - .. ... : ~ ,_ .... /11 I i ! ..... 11 ... first appellate magistrate ,~tated as follows in his decision- .:· nr checked well the evidehce.of both parties-in'the record of the .. primary court, in respect of the . . po:rtion of land in dispute nnd .I. b.m satisfied the.· findi;ng of the p.i:-imary court is proper. Md l uphold· \ it 1 . therefo~- l dismisl':~ appen.1. with costsli. 11.dmi ttedly • the .first appello.tc m'.1gis#,fnte .. ...· was. ~ v0:r:y: .;~r.ie:t' in his deeision suffic,ient . . . . . . . ; ., ·. to dispose th~ appeal be.fore him, b~tt.±he- Appellant in his submission be.fore this_ court. in s1,2.pport of his appe,?:l.:.~?-s, ~Jt: shown who.t,;.,u.<2.Jnti;;- of. law .or, findings should have been ~ e c ! . by 'the s..::1.,ip.; mngist:rate in .. ~~ of his. appt:al before the said magistrate~,, I find and hold.,that ~he said -~~d of appeal has not been e.anvassed 11'1 by th~. Appell~t in his submission b~fore £his e,:mrt .'.:\.nd therefore has no meriJ-. \,) . ·' .·· The thircl · issue· is whether th·~t\rin'.l cour~ d\~ '.iPr did not· make a v:-isi t to the disputed land and whether the sketch 'ina,,p···ct:r'awn by -the trial court e.nd its . .. , ;:-,.:_ -''.•. : ' ! .. l: .·; decision thereon was m:J.de to. pl~M.e: the Respong'ent an.d defoat justice as alleged . .· -.; ·.,,-:,-.: . ?•:- '.·:,. by the Appellant in his submissidnt··: The R~spondent 1 'l . his submission contended and I quite agree with hi~ that th:~; trf~i~S~'t; h;~ ~isi~ed the disputed lnnd and. draw the sketch ~ap which tnd':ic,i-,_ted·~ that it _was the Appellant who had tre~passed the dis":;)utcd !~~is±~ J{;i~l;y-t1:a~ from the judgement ~f the triai court, it stated as follows:-. r . j;_.:\_~·:··· ·-, :~tL .. _ 1 ;-) H ~ ·Mahakama ilit·~mbelea enec,: lcny'_d ugomvi na baadoye ·p•:, vipimo vinavydhusika na kuaiigt1lia.' ilivyoingiliw.'.i ilio• nf;lkano. wa:zi lobisa kwamba eneo amhalo mdaiwa qmcingilia ni _~neo -1?.. mdai k-'lma in,'.lvyo9n-c'!kana · katika nic-pqro.· Baadn Y?-·kush'luriana na mshatiri Mahaloma irneamua kwc;mba kulingana- ushahidiiwa·mchoro unn.v:Y,:oonyes!in. ni k.wrunbo. 1!1dn.i ameshinda '·,; ·'-·· :;, ! . ·'·· The decision of the trio..l COU!'.t 3.S above qu,6t~d conclusi vel:'f: :shows that the 1'" .,; • • trial court hc::.d visited the. disputed land hrid having seen the measurement of .. boundaries ·{twas clear to thG S[lid court that it wa.s the 1\.ppcllo.nt who had trespassed into the disputed_ l,::md. I find and ihold on the basis of what I have stated that the triol court visit,ed the dispute,d land and e~tabli\Shed on the ·• . .• • . • i;" ·:.: !.•~-- . basis of me0.surcmant taken t]?.;lt it wo..s the AppellD.nt who had_ trespassed t_Il;e ~ . ' . . . disputed land benci;; enter~d decisi912:c:L-i ·favour of the .Respondent.- · ~or do I agree with .th~ Appellant that it was inteq~-~~ t11> please .'the. Respondent and d0fe.:tt . . .... .!,.,;;,.:., ,.·. . : - ··• . . . - .., ...•, ...,tn~ justicec . The third issue is therefor_;~,-,s~tJi~R.-?n. , said lines. , __ .,_ . . . - 12 :-- ' ' ' .. ·._' ::·._ The fo~th issue is whether the Respond~p.t d.id or did not prove his case : at the: tria:1:·:.c6wt on '0.1.lanc-e"'of · p;obab_ilitrL · The 'Appellnnt had contended in his submission that·the R~sp6ndent'ctid not.prove his _casa on balance of proba- bility. ·. ,Howe'\i'er, th~ :Resporidartt in. his ~dbiniss:fon and p.s p~r the procuedings in th~ j:;r,i~l 601.i-rt,t.i.ad tii~·tified · iri. the said court in support of his claim and • had c;lled· -~:_:\.j,itrfusses ~lid '·tc1stf'ff~d .-ago.in to support the Resi_.')()ndent 's ca.se and plus the visit to the disputed.land itwis est11blished that.the Appellant C.:bI?..-9 :trespossea. th~ displited ~lm1ct'~ I h::i.ve "no· hesist~tiori,, ther..;fore' to find . ~~ ho'.bi..; ,that .the- Respondent upbn 'iiis• evideric·~ . and that of·. his'. 1 • ¥ ·rn tnesoos adduced • • in.-t-he trial court, ht: hud proved his case on·b:1.l1mee· ., of· probaoiliti.::s. So t!i~ · . •.· · order the case at the trial cow-t _to stai-t de n6vo and order M ~ . .,_The fifth is-sue:.is- wheth~r -the: first appel:tate eourt o.nd this court eould invGstigntion to· be m:i..de about the 1\prki1ants all-eged Criminal, case d~cic~cd in 1958 and the transaction befbrc K~i'tibu Kata in ·Lm~ As I ha.v-e earlL➔r stntcd, the Appellant's · cont(;ntion·:. is that the c::i.se 0t ~he trini court. was ras judicatn due anothur . ., decision o.f a primary, court made in 1958 and sub:..judice due to trnnse.ctfon before Kati bu K~t~ in 1975; · '•rhq :Respondent in· his submission rG:plicd th~t the Appellant did not tertd"er '5.t th~ \ri.ii"' court the judge'Tlent of thG ::uh,g'3'd - - · oth~r court and that the trmisci:ction before Ks.tibU: . Kata. in I958 vrna : . n-,t a judicio.1 . . proceedings. I quite agre!:l •,jitl.1 th-= Respondent that the Appell-::-.nt hsd the obligation .to .tender the· ,jticlgemt:nt Qf the alleged another primary- court mn.d(; in I95a. ·if a.t _411 tq.e issue of res _judicata h:id to be cons'idered. In any ":.'Vent, I hav~ ._,already demonstroted thilt ·the point of res judicn.ta do:·:s not hold water in vi~w Q_f-.wha:t i~ stated in Rule II of the Mo.gistrates 1 Courts (Civil Procedure . . in Prim~ry Courts):;Rul.es, hence even if Copy of the alleged decision or judgement is. availc.ble it would .not further 'the' doncept of res judicata. Further, the Appellant in his submission before. this court has eontended thct the: re.e)rds of the all2ged prim.-:,ry cnurt ~~- Jll'\ich the alleged <:D.S€! dealt in I958 existed have been· destroyed by .anti:; henc\:i it hey ·cannoJ be, ~vailable nny long.er for r:.:n.y purposei As reg,:irda, the tra;~"l.ctian b~for,e ih~ Kn.tibu Kata in 1975, I hc.ve already foum.r' and hold that it did.not mean that th0 00.se of I958 wns still sub-judice because • < as far as the pr:)ceodings of I9.5..8, ,"/ere concerned w~ru alren.dy concluded, the matter 'hef.ore I{a.tibu ·Kata was for exac.ution only• . the issue' . of Thor-afore~ in 1!1Y consi,qered view, there being -r,...o miscnrriage of justice 1 · .... .:_; - . ; -·-. -,r~trial of' the cnse bBf6re tne trial eourt, do~s not arise. To coneede to the prayer.of the Appellm~ to order the tric.11 de-novo to inv~stig3.te the posi tion•-·oi the decision and proceadini;s of the I958 case had no basis from what I have stated above and is uc~~.lflly an afterthought • ••• /13 ·-- ·13.- ' I find and hold that this point·has no merit •. The record of the trial court doesnot·show ·that the Lppellant did tender any document-to ·support the said point or any other point contested in this appeal hcince there is no cause.or reason to order for a retrial of the co.a~ before·· the trial court• In tpe final result• the. appen.i is h1::reby dismissed with costs. I uphold I the decisions of the two courts below .. It is mo order.::d. II · _· ·:~C\df~.M/\ ·' F :!,~o \Jundu; · I I .,Judgi:, : ; 23/8/20r:J5. Right of App~al Explained. ~~~-~ F.,h.Ro Jundu, . c> Judge, 23i8/2005 23/8/2005 . . Coram: F.A.R. Jundu, ·J. For Appellant: - . .'\. bs en t I For Respondent: pr(:;:sent in person. Court:- Judi5ement read in the pr,:.sence of the Respondent but in the absence of the Appellruit who is aware of th·e date of delivery of Judgement as he was present in this court on 12/7/20r:J5 when todays date for