19901207 TZHC Tabora

"f:-VC CI\fIL ,,,.- ..·E,,.L NC. 10 or 1988 ( C:"IG.IN.,.,L 3HhL-DI DI::iTlUCT COUhT ) ) I ·; Versus tr.i;-.GB.:1-JDC GIL3UY,-•• e • • • • • • . . . . . . . . . . , • • • • • , • • i1.ESPONDLNT J U !) G :t,·;, E N T. -•··· --- ... "---·--- ......... _.., £fili_~,._ ;I_._ In S£.rir::,c:i District Ccurt the .respondent, Magendo C·\ r.l. Gimbuya ,. S\:i.;:;c~ the appellant, \3yuna Village Chairman, for recoTcry of a grir:u:.r~:;:, macline or :i_Jos:.10 mill. The trial court founr. fo'r the resJon~0nt, and the ap~ell~nt nuw aµpeals to this court. The bt;C1~ 6 round of t:.~a ,-tispute is, tb,tt in Juno 1981 the Go--re..: rnment l;:;,unc:;a :-) an oper~ti~:n which came to be known as "0perut"ion ?~achines 11 wi:?.ica. nimec nt n:;-tic,nalizing all g~inding machines from individu~ls ~=t puttin~ t~~m in t~c hunds of villages for •he benefit of ~11. In the course of tl~c:.i.t 11 0per.ation" tho respondent's grinr1tng r:.ill .::.t Byuna Vil1nge w:;s n.:1tiorn.1lizon unc:1 han('ecl to the vilL'lge 1-.ut::-~c..:;;ity. The vilL.-1r:e was to compensate the responr~ent the valu-3 of." t~::ie machine., TJ.1~ machine w,\S assessec. at Shs.40, 76fJ/:=.. The vilLq:_;-3, L:nrnver, di(: net 1~.ave t}rn money to pay the 'rgree(l compensS1-tic.:-"' So i t 1u1s .:i.sr,?:c~ betwocn the parties thai the villag8 wct:7-..:' t::::ke the m.'..lci'.".ine on ere di t a-n~ woulr. be paying for i t by inst2lrnents fro~ proced~G earned from its use. T~o c~c~ine 1 however, broke doubt after only six monthst an~ so t~8 vill~Fe was en~ble to continue paying the instulmcnts~ -·~•j Apparently, }~t was the S''.:•i;.ft th.'lt hncl beEm br_oken.. The V-ill.tge Authority t~9= approached the responfcnt anrl asked him to help to rep~ir t~0 ~~c~ine by buying~ now shaft •. The respon~ent considered tb.-s but fet:.~1c"! i -f; unwise bdC3USO that would h..lV~ amo\_mted t o a nll t~is is'nut in ~is~ute. In orcer to recover his mon~y from t h•.:i vil.L. ;;e 1 _tli1;1 -; r~s,_: /nc: :::nt .bought ,..mother rtt..lchine . '' ' - the one ' ' ' in d~~pute ~ for·~hsl 80,000/= 1 u~d _us i~dtvidµals w~re .not ~ltowed :to opcrc.t .) ,Sl: inc1.ing milcl'::in0s in tr:o area 1 tho rospon1.hmt offered to len~ to t~o viflage tn~t ffi~cbineq The idea ~~s th~~ thp vi~lage ~oulc op:)r,:~u the m.::>.ch~.n~:: o~'! ½e 1nlf of ·q.10 · re~pondept ~-hp wou+cl )· • ! , . •I. p-r- t~ SJ>C ns ibL.i f o:r u1.:i' running costs• T're' ,re~pQpccnt w-ouir't :•.-~ ,/2, 2 t-urn ,'be aole to receive his atall,'e'<'I instul.ments front -the pro-eee&s until:- the debt.tor the f'!rst machine w;;is tully pnid. That w~s t~a raspon~•ni•s case. ,. I _In_cr ~bcut Octob~r, l9b2,· the p~rties ·prepared tha a~i~µnts'cf·t~e . business ~f tte second machines it :: . was:-f~und . .·· ; ·, ' t,h~}, t~e r.1cney l;'~C~~Yt,H~. by t::~e responnen~ ''from the seeofld J;laGhi.ne -ti. 1. ,·., i:' "I'.·•-~.. ·. . ." ·. ! . ' . . . bad .mor~· tr-~tn. S&'ttl.ed,:~ha CiObt· for :the fir.st m,,chinc pnr, so a f?UUL, of $h~~ 8j,730/=, Whio~iwz,s :cxcass 1 i·shoulcf be. pai~ to the1vi).las;e - - ,.. ' ' . · ·a.n~ the· re,monr~,:mt woul.d tl:.un · tak'e away hi,.& machine. , then the. reeponden~ proposed this Arrnnsern~nt to tho ~illago Authority 1 . th~y t~l~ lH;t:: th.. t tboy W~Ulc' cont-'et tb~ Dis tri c t ...,COrmn:i..s.sioner f i t st. · So· ti... ,J ~±iiagti Auth~rity ,tt-~to 41 lettor to the Oiatrtct. Comrnis·siOncr'~ tit th.:a t .. 1\J·tio%'_,· wlilch betwe"m ~. t:~~: p.:..rti,1•• . .; ' thb' eti'ntra. t l·w dispute , the villago J.Uthoritt •1.:.litt.d tih:-,t irl- il.ti t• ~i · ng:r~er.,ant fOJ.' sale, the r:::ia~on~ent. ha«' .eolt4 them th~ second mucllir-r aiao Qn"' t:--_~"-t t~cy ~~c p~ic! him a total of Shs .,124 1 490/70 :for both m•chinrtlh HS it .turno~ out f no •ucb aJcH~l!f(Jflt (1xi.ste c .for the .;.,,._c·ond. ""'"··c'···i ·~ict- g "-'" JJ,low', u . . -.... . . . . . • ..... f.he ie'artt<l~ tr'iul senior rosl~ent mnii8trut~ 1 Hen·c-a t:: '-3 iluit. a• h.e . than w..:is, curetully ev:aluAtoc' th~ evidonce <1bc' was satisfied tt,at tb.:,r..:i w;:;,s no 4gre..,pent t>! s.4le for the aoeond machine 1 ah<"' thAt tho sum of Sh.s.83,730/70 wa.a n'o more than un ovo:rpZ1yr;ont :for the first mac:::ino. l u~ of ~~e sume opinion •. Nowhere in any of tt•c docurcnts pro<luc-ec :::.z oxh:ibits by t·tu p~rtics is it shown that thorfl w<ls an agre0m02Tt :for s~le for t ...-:i s:.:cond m.:ichin0.. I think th.lt the '1illJ.g~ 1-mt;_;1c:r-ity trio<i tc t..:::i:rn ~dv..inta.ge of the respondent's desiro to b:) p::.ic for t;-·0 fi.rst me.chino" E":~ything tht.tt hac to do with tt.c tr~ns~ctions_of t~8 first c~chine wos in writing~ Why _shoulc~ .:1n a.grec>ment for sc.lo of the i:,econd rnn.chine not enst 7 · ·B.,.-en t!:1'3 lott z,r written by t~·:o District. Devolopnent. Director ...._ ( ~b:i.l)i t f • "C'') •uggests th .. t they were tnlkinr abo.ut the first, maehine u!1cl t>3 t'flbt relator, tharato und not t!,e second m..ichino. Jt'or tJ.:.:J 0 8 reuso..ns.~ I e~n see no reason for :lnteri'ering with the findinGs ~~ fn~t by tjd learnc~ trial mngistrato, which were •arsaly b~se~ on the cre~ibility of witnesses. ,ln t"·.e rormlt 1 this an-,-:ienl f:.:dls un~ so is hereby_ with costs.· ·· ·· , / / ·I ,; 0 ~ fillfl/J{/2lift ,- Tabor/i .. . .,_;;,,;...;; . ----- _ 7· th ol Partie' ' - t: JUDGE. \· ' ,