19760812 TZHC Mwanza
Appellant failed to establish his claim with credible evidence; his own witness confirmed respondent's version that all cattle were collected by appellant after selling one.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19760812 TZHC Mwanza
- Parties
- Appellant: Bukuru Kigara; Respondent: Islael Tirukaizile
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 12 August 1976
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Second Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Recovery of Entrusted Property, Burden of Proof
- 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
Bukuru Kigara
Appellant
Islael Tirukaizile
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent was in possession of the appellant's cattle and liable to return them
Ratio Decidendi
Appellant failed to establish his claim with credible evidence; his own witness confirmed respondent's version that all cattle were collected by appellant after selling one.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA C ii iqv;iuL. (PC) CIVIL APL N O. 42 OF 1975 (Frm the decision of the District Court of Bukoba at Bukoba in Civil Appeal No. 125 of 1975 - Before J.S. IWAMI, Esq., Supervisory i1ugistrate.) & Original Rukinio Primary Court Civil Case No. 2 of 1974) BUKI.JRU KiGARA ...... .....................,...".".. ...........APPELLANT V±iR3US ISLAEL TIRUKAIZILE ......... ..... ..... O O ...RESPONDENT JUDGEMENT MFA!JILA, J.: Unfortunately the appellant has been reported dead, but I heard the appeal on the basis of the memorandum of appeal filed by him. The appellant the late BUKURU KAGA1A, sued the respondent in the Primary Court at Rukindo claiming that the respondent should return to him 8 heads of cattle which he had ealier entrusted to him sometime in 1967 prior to his cieparture for Kisumu. He sail that the original cattle were two but by the time he claimed their return, they had multiplied to eight through the natural process of birth. The respondent denied these alle- gations that at the time he had in his possession any cattle belonging to the appellant. He agreed that the appellant had entrusted to him two heads ,f cattle but said that these had already seen returned, one in the formoney after it was sold to him by the appellant for shs. 800/=, and the other along with the rest were physically taken by the appellant when he established his own home. The Primaay Court u_r.;_-zj_nuualy found that the appellant had not established his claim and dismissed the suit. The appellantts appeal to the district court inst a similar fate. This is a second appeal. I think it clear on Li:e evidence that the appellant's case was extremely weak. It was not even supported by his own witnesses. As own witn- 088 Kamanzi confirned th respondentts case that the appellant collected all his cattle, from him after selling dne of them. In the faoe.of such evidence, the trial court as well as the first appellate court were of the view that the appellant's claims against the respondent were unfounded. There is nothing in the memorandum of appeal tothis court which can pursuade me to interfere With these decisions whTich as remarked are firmly based on the evidence available. For these reasons the appeal is dismissed. BUKOBA 12th August, 197 6 L.MFILILA JUDGE.