19700102 TZHC Mwanza

a.. anuTu2p .t(q po 0aa tto J.OU pu o- qoo Jo puoq Dt.t; p:w.o niutu2p q..2q. p9 j.xnoo otq. Aq uotq.utwuxo — S$OtO t!O 'IDAOMOLT 'jc Tue.'r, jo osotp .ctt uaom 2qwaqs qut3rdd2 ptmo qq..2O DLfl. Y2S O:;otcj ojxoq.$ to ;o qioc1drs wt ti o/p oot uo 12noxq oq czs xot Ut U° oiç tmo oq. DU. 110 ID OA0CY[ 0t1 tIOIW4 30 pklDtI ouo PDUO TttO Otis q2tfl. j.xnoo Ltwtid otl poq. oouujop iot ut quopuodsax O qj uopuodsoi Dt. 'n2utu JO SO1fl D1M Dfl42O Otfl. 21 IDt qu2odcio Dtfl PT 2 '':DADOtI 'Y' Oq40 DAtJ otq. Jo XUUMO Otfl. MOtD T OTX pip DTJ q.2tfl. p129 ottnotq (Ld) uurni , D jo oouopto o. q poioddns si zaqui za lT s IDt WOIJ DT4q2O JO PaOIT DAt pDOwDJ DtS 2tfl. iIOS S 1 422ITDLIcIT •posrtso o)owop ot. M29 p112 2qw2t9 01fl. O9I2UItICT. Otfl. UI ioxowl ~ SDT S u2fl0th18 04 UtpIOOOO £OtM 'ooqcy1 2MI2Ij 'Duo '.10p201 — IIDO 2 oq. wDtfl. poT puu 2qw2ts XDT UJO1J DT42O OTfl. pOOtUDI tZ2iiDdd 3 YLq. DOUDtD OUq. WOT tD1j (4 0fl420 JO PeOLT DATJ Dt DOTS 09[2 puD sq. eld D1t °- pDSn2O DTh2WDp D1fl aDlq Oq. POMOLTS U8 2WfltJ3 'DUO PDU2O q.tID[ dd2 Dtj q.uopuodso 1q 'n7utu1JM xnoqttou xot JO 000qq. 92 pDtJtq.uOpT '1 tITt.lM 3CWD1i9 tO oq42O JO PTOTJ DATJ MDS OlqS •oq4sO gq po S o a Tsop uouq p e tl Sq.uDci 2A89920 U2 sooq.2od aDII q.2tq. ptmoJ PUS squiss aoil (4 q.UDM q.U2DdCU °' P DUO 1J?14q. q.00j;o otq. oT si q.inOO 12wt1d Dtfl. ut oouDlpTAo O tIL q.I1100 Sttfl. 01. PcT2)dcI'a !4OU S2ttO)ftq.U3" 13 OflWtUt JO a nO4Dj UT DtOD p112 q..inoO jt2UJTItI DTq. JO q.uotupnC Dt{q. pDSIDAOI q.znoo q.oixstp aq q.Itc'O q.OtXq.STp otq. Oq. pD1Ddd8 puD uOtstODp )tfl. tq.tM JCiCISt[ q.OU SSM fl3UTtD otq.usj oq. uOTq.2SuDcIwOt -/oot sd oq. nutU3f.• poIDpxo p112 O)tq.tl2.i JO XflOA2J III ptmoJ. q.1TlOO AJDuItICI Dt •o -jq.q.ao sq.uopuodsoi .iq 1D.IVOXq.SDp uocq oi oq. po 39 ocXoio Doq.2q.Od pUS 2/(20920 JDT4 JOJ UOIq.20110C1W00 _/OO.STS utWt2IO qiuDpuodcDx q.UDSDICT Dq. 'iU$2W o/p flUtU21 pOnS O ~,J Tq.LT210, q.fl09 Sa RUIT a d oil DOJn 00 TXd tSOUt)I Tq.I)I o/p ojtq.usj Rq 12Dd2 US •fI':j 6E7A7ZNIt 'tN3NDctflf I i • a • • • • • I 7irIVIi flDflII I I I I I a a I • a . . a a èILLI)I O)IIIJFl. 0 II (tsouti JO q.XflO3 112WTJd OIPr J° 6961 JO cT b or DSUQ TIATO sui5ii JO L'O'T 1odci •r 6961 TTT0 Ut )WLXI2JJ q.U. SISrt tfl.IO!T JO q.IflO3 q.Otiq.St Cuq. JO Tj pTSTOOP i:Uq. wold) oL6i a o L 011 'IVKddJ 'hAlo (3d) °uoqopoçnf oq.S - Dcictrj er 1 tT ('iIq.stPoi q.OT1q.9T[ Utfl UI) V INVZHVI dO WIfiO0 HOIH LHL t'II _ 17 ..... ..... -2— The loeriJ cd district magistrate in his dgment said - he plaintiff did not say whore she took the animals when she moved them off her shamba and I cannot understand why tho cattle could not be soon by more than one witness . . . . . My views arc, therefore, opposed to those of the trial court." hth respect the 'learned magistrate's remark that the plaintiff (present appellant) did not say whore she took the animals after she had removed them from her ehaba, is not supported by the evidence. In her evidence the appellant cic.rly told the primary court tht she took th.: five hood of cattle to an c'ldcr, Marwa Weboga. I agree thet there is only the word of Chuma who said that she saw the appellant removing five head of cattle from her siamba, and that it was only the a - pollant who said she identified the as those of the respondent0 It is however important cattle to note that the respondent in her evidence said that she only owned one head of cattle. Eer testimony was later proved to be lie,,6 by no loss a person that her own daughter, Bhoko (D.W.2) who told the court that the respondent owned ivo head of cattle and not one as the respondent would have liked the oot to believe. In this case the issue before the primary court was whether the cattle which damaed appellant's shamba wore those of the respondent. Whether or not the cattle were those of the respondent was a- question of fqct to be decided on the evidence tendered in the pimary court. The prima y court magistrate as well as the two assessors who sat with him assessed the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses and came to the unanimous opinion that the plaintiff's (prosont appellant) story carried morel weight than that of the defendant (present respondent); and consequently jave judgment in favour of the ilaintiff. ' Where atcision of a lower court is puroiy based on the credibility of the witnesses lower court is the best jud'e. In such cases an appellate court should not interfere unless there are very good reasons for doing so. In my view the decision of the primary court magistra±o,supported as it is by both a sossors, is to be preferred. The judgment of the district court is ccordingy sot aside and that of the primary court is h;rcby restored. In the eveht the appeal is upheld. The appellant is to have her costs in this, and the lower courts. Delivered in Court this 2nd day of January, 1 97 0 - (N. I Ct ing.uj.