19780615 TZHC Mbeya
The appellant's conduct indicated he never intended to honour the customary obligation, and having received the carcass, he is not entitled to a refund.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19780615 TZHC Mbeya
- Parties
- Appellant: Astuwise Mwaisakila; Respondent: Kulewa Mvakibuta
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 15 June 1978
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Engagement Gifts, Refund of Consideration, Customary Obligations
- 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
Astuwise Mwaisakila
Appellant
Kulewa Mvakibuta
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent is obliged to refund the cow after the engagement broke down
- 2 Whether the appellant received the carcass of the cow
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant's conduct indicated he never intended to honour the customary obligation, and having received the carcass, he is not entitled to a refund.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- appeal dismissed with costs in this appeal and in the two courts below
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
0140 \, ---- 7 IN E HI Gà O1 0 TANZANIA a ... AT1EYA - () clvii APPEAL 3 OP 1977 (ORIGINAL FROaM MASOKO s PLARY CIVIL CASE No.74/77, DISTRICT COURT WKUYU CTVIL APPEAL' No 67/1977). BflORE:— JA.1,\7AKII-IABA, ESQ., DISTRICT MAGISTRATE. ASTJ]VIWIS'E IVIWAISAKILA....... (0RmINAL PLAINTIP) versus KULEWA MVAKIBUTA...................... .,.. .R3POflDELT (onIGnTIL DENDANT) J U D G M R N T J.J .M.I1ACKANJA R.M. WISH EDCTENDED JURISDICTION. The appellant was courting the responclentts daughter, Taifa. In consideration of-that courtship ie paid one cow and some shs60O/= to his would —be inlaws. The cow that was thus.paid died and the oppellant promised to rel')lace it with a live beasts The engagenen't broke clown before the promise was honouredo The respondent rcunded the ioney fl;i claimed that because he had already haded the caress of the cow to the appellant he was no longer bound to refund any cow to the appllant The appellant denies to have ruceved the crcas, a contention which found favour with the trial court but which was outright rcjoctQd by. the District Court when sitting in its appellate jurisdiction. It may 1 a noted th t the appellant, before tho trial court, merely ,elainod not to have received the carcas. On the other band the respondent categorically stated that he handed the carcas to t1e appellant in the presence of one Uwakinyomana Mwakibingaand one Makaja @ Malaya..— the latter is adm: ttedly the appellantts brother There has been no frher evidence to show that something more was to be done in the handing —bver ceremony, but whet the appellant did was indicative of how he reahtd. Ho just walked cVay in silence. As far as I see it, the conduct of the appellant was such that he never intended to honour the customary obligation laid on him. And this explains why he has now -th.med against the respondent. Unfortunately, as the learned District Magistrate held, he cannot succeed when his hands are so muh soiled. I may only add that all relevant issu2s had been exhaustively dealt with by the learned District Magistrate. The appeal is 0 . 1 . . . , . . . .. . . .... . . 2 -2- The appeal is accordingly disriissed with costs in this appea and in the two courts below. IUGH COURT BEYA (0J.M.MAcIciuJA) -'II 15th June,1978. RESIDT MAGISTRATE WEXTEIWED JIT1USDIC TION