20020702 TZHC Bukoba 1
The appeal was dismissed because there was no evidence of misapprehension, miscarriage of justice, or violation of law or procedure in the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the sale of land.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 20020702 TZHC Bukoba 1
- Parties
- Appellant: Andrea Mdyungi; Respondent: Rooza d/o Muyungi
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 2 July 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Sale of Land, Forgery, Concurrent Findings, Appellate Review
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Andrea Mdyungi
Appellant
Rooza d/o Muyungi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sale agreement was genuine or forged
- 2 Whether the concurrent findings of fact by lower courts should be disturbed
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because there was no evidence of misapprehension, miscarriage of justice, or violation of law or procedure in the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the sale of land.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT BUKOBA (PC) CIVIL APP~AL NO~ 152 OF 1991 (From the decision of the District Court of Bukoba District at Bukoba in Civil Appeal No., 83 of 1989 and origin::i.l Civil Case Nao 27 of 1988 of Knynne;a- Primary Court~ Defore; Ze Rwejunaj Esq.o PDH)c ANDREA MDYUNGI O ♦ oeoooooooooooooeooooooe APP.i'JI ,LANT V1i;RSUS ROOZA D/0 MUYUNGI RESPONDENT JUDGMENT NASANCW.i...<I_... I ap-preciDte that Mr. :Rwejun~ the Principal Dis'trict M2e;istr.?cte, had a difficult task in resolving this appeal which ccme before him in one way or another. This WW3 so because, as he himself put it ( a thing which I agree) both the appellant end respondent tendered before him sale agreement which were pure forgeriesft I support th0 first appellate Court in resorting to the oral evidence. L11uri:m . Muvurnd. "'"'-,·~· ,_ .....--,'- told tl:.e trial c:1..m:rt that he sold the piece of ·1a:o.d fc:' Sl::.s.,17,0C:•~1/:::.; 'I'h.2-t a,ssertion was 3upported by P\•/2, p1;13 nnd PW4~. The tuyer (respondent) with two witnesses however ga.ve ::, different fig'J.:re., They say the shambn was sold at Shs.25,000/= .. The trial Court wns aware of this hiding of the purchase m0riey or the cloud surround:i._ng it, but in the end became of the settled opinion that it wes sold, to the respcndent,, This was: or is, therefore o. fr.i.ct the two Courts below h:-we heldo Now.1 it is the lc:w thnt where there are two concurrent findings of fact of two Gour-ts, a thirt C..:·urt (the i·1e.y I am sitting) may not disturb those concurrent findj_ngs e,f fo.0·t unless ilit is clearly shown th::it there has been n misapprehension of e·.rid.ence,. a miscarriage of justice or violation of some principle of law or procedure 11Amratlal Drunodar & Another v. A. H. Jariwalla fi989/ ToL.R .. 32). This appeal, therefore, hA.S no merit .. It is dismissed. I make , - .. 2 no order as to· costs, as I am informed~ the respondent ·is dead., ' _) : ✓ 'J;/ J. ye. MASANC.HE / LTUDGE !I -- Appellant present in person. For Respondent; Tr::-Jzius Muyungi. (aunt to the Deceased)