19801103 TZHC Musoma3
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to provide conclusive evidence identifying the cow as his, and the claims of both parties were equally matched.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19801103 TZHC Musoma3
- Parties
- Appellant: BVM. ARWA; Respondent: KISHME MNSHRE
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 3 November 1980
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Recovery of Entrusted Property, Burden of Proof, Limitation of Actions
- 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
BVM. ARWA
Appellant
KISHME MNSHRE
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to reclaim the cow allegedly entrusted to the respondent
- 2 Whether the claim is time-barred
- 3 Whether the appellant provided sufficient evidence to identify the cow
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to provide conclusive evidence identifying the cow as his, and the claims of both parties were equally matched.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- appeal dismissed with costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Ccuc - • IN TilE HIGH COUflT C GhithHL. .' AT JPPELIdE JtJRISDICGIOH (po) CIVIL APPEL NO 106 OP 1979 (Prom the decisiOn of the District Court of Musoms. at Mttoma in Civil A pea1 No 10 of 1978 -Befoe: B.. Kisanji,. Esq senior Magistxlate and Original Muoma Urban Primary OourtCiv±1 Case No4/1977) MWIT. I\.RWA ::.:: :2::::::: .:•: : : : : 2:3 : :2::::::: : .: : :::: APPEIIANT VERSUS KISHME MNSHRE 00000 K J U D G B K E N T ALI ,J,: The appellant BVIM, lLiRWA sued the respondent claiming one cow.• this was One of the six heads of cattle which he hadentrusted to the respondent way back in 162. He said that he was claiming this particular cow and not the rest because the respondent had claimed that it was lost when it was not'. One day he sevi t with a calf in respondentYs ooia. The respondenu reslsGed this claim saying that the dow did not beion, to the eppellant. The rimary Court accepted the appellant's claim and ordered the cow to be restored to hirn But on appeal the District Court reversed this finding saying first that the claim was time—barred and secondly that ther6 was enough evidence showing that the respondent had returned all the cattle to the appel1ant ithegh the decision of the District Court was correct, I do not Pa gred with the reasons gien In this case there was no question of limitation of time.. This was not a claim for the päyment of a debt.it was simply a suit to reclaim what had been entiiisted for safe keeping'.,. 'There is no limit for the tirne within which one may keep someone else's eattleh I think the main reason why the oppe1lant's claim could not succeed is that he had no evidence conclusively identifying the cow he was c1airn.ng to be his. His claims over this coi were equally matched by these of the repcndent, hence it could not be said in these circumstanees ±h+ hA ht 'ryrc,1 hi rj c rwvnrl cr'L For these reasons I dismiss this appeal with oosts' .j • '.: ' .. tJS0MA. ' .• 1. 'MPLII 3RD N0VER,', 1980..4 JUDGE