19710128 TZHC Mwanza2
iJ 014 14 1OI0,D1Otfl. 'FJIOTIOJ TI fltIN .V,xodoxcT ou. .ou gtrza uopuodsoi 014 JO 4zod6rcT ctq. c.q o. Tanoo ot. puno; cxo nt 4 2us .SUt)D 0OIO0p 014 DOZOTtID o. d(oo us ut poz TOS .t D.C5 014 T.TOtttM DT4DO ' ot 1 3us trc7a nq uopuodsox ot . .suçs3s TOTT pooxo;uo oq q.s'nui oio;oxotjq. ooioop qsq .SUI05 Ttiq...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19710128 TZHC Mwanza2
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 28 January 1971
- 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.
No structured case brief is available yet for this judgment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
iJ 014 14 1OI0,D1Otfl. 'FJIOTIOJ TI fltIN .V,xodoxcT ou. .ou gtrza uopuodsoi 014 JO 4zod6rcT ctq. c.q o. Tanoo ot. puno; cxo nt 4 2us .SUt)D 0OIO0p 014 DOZOTtID o. d(oo us ut poz TOS .t D.C5 014 T.TOtttM DT4DO ' ot 1 3us trc7a nq uopuodsox ot . .suçs3s TOTT pooxo;uo oq q.s'nui oio;oxotjq. ooioop qsq .SUI05 Ttiq quoptiodsox SUt2is qOu coxoop PTOLT TueTj - dde ott; 1. Stfl. Z50O 5 T •I tFT'I Zfl03 ToTaTSTCE 014 JO UOtStOOp 014 .514 5 DOS ptOM .I uow:inC sutss tcdo MDU st L:iIoctdS oIll ttcdds qtiDuinC DAS Dt ITUD 5DSUOO Pt I (tOIdWt 1 SSM IDJO pt .2S oq. T4 I[D OSThDTT OtZ.Stfl pDuxSo ocr, .u11odcI OUT Dfl400 rflDJ c:o.soi o. WI portn5ox rot xopxo ot. utJs OtUtI5 1L 5 .ZflO3 TOTZn5t( 014 C. pD5Ddd5 TgaptzodsOa aqr uopuodsox ot. po3Uooq Dti. osnsooq qttoptiocisoI 014 O. pOZOODI OTT pTas fl,?)USJ ttM U0 ttt0.3tXSi 01013 pDtTO04S ixooq StItJtZo ptT t[0tW4 Dfl400 014 3 oq 'op.so i TueTTpdde ot. c4 sd pnots OtT qst. poIopxo IDL.In; Tan 014 'I0ADI0T1 WT 11 O. pouooqot.eo ?I otq. pimo; .xnoo ot. 990141M 0TT jU5 Wtt .q poonpps oouopt.o uocIr t.XSZt .2 .Irto3 isu aj 014 Ut ttotooqo US potJ q.uopuodsox DLIT, OOTTTeD owos wtt wc 3 P DZTOS puT rtU O. PO.o •tox 91 OtM ttopuodsox. 014 o. q.uo 2 D. xo; ooIoop .TtT DOXO;UO O. 1CIWD4 xifl.Irt; S Ut TueTTc cI la Ot. ' 9 TZt. DUtMOIIOff • poou4uoa pus pb.oti.ttoo £np ssi' pus ornzi P3M1 Xoptrn (cT4° V DI. 2hxtp11i0ut) 4iod0xd o TeA01uDa xo; OpO3 i 014 JO ¶1T U0t.OD9 10UT poq.nOOSOxd rlouq. sst n 1 3ujVi1 Oq.UOPUOd 1 014 oq po3u0toq otn. 'piss otj 'osn'aooq .uopuodsDx o14;oq 01014 JO J OJ POPU0.I OtT l achomotl 0p450 09014 30 L'poono 3utdoo so 01ttM 'xD45W 014 JO uo:ttttuIo.op •isutj ?utpuod o- j..so L 0S07. jo .ipc snO 014 14T-- nts3usAj pDq.SThI.UD tOtui.t .xnoo o rnoxq sse. xoq.ow i . xsnJs Plnot .t .i °tUtt WOIJ Dp.qSO L 00100 ')OZtOS Pue n;ua2 . . 11014 uoiTodds 014 ooaoop 014 DOXOJUD O. 1r dwaTTe US t1J cp4S ostq. JO x0000x 014 10; n 4 :thzaAi ports .ici-rn,s000ns TuigTTOdde 014 S PUD US 01 00150 X0.STS pus q.usodcIs Dm. uooDq uotun 014 A JeTqUGAD t:Du SflTUS JO OOdSOx Ut ootxd optxq ss ni.s 1 Jus j oq. o4so 05014 PTd pSt[ 01 1514 powt'eIO Pi lueUoddlu oij .o. .SO 2 JO X0A000.X 014 ZOJ vao2u2W nTSU5.&:T 09 0 TISS DUO .5 IflO !XDU1iXd 014 Ut ports n2un3ju stustuc qusodds ot - 3v ONtI)i .J1NDc[f1f quspt kit U o todtti °100117.0 NOiD snsa:oa 0 o ° JtUSId TTIdd7 °flOi\tfl)itt1A1!. WHJNI -D ('ri 0 a ''bs sXo3uoow73 oxo;oa) (L9 61 30 fr - oi 00 5 0 1T'TD Tanon RaewTa cl Tx2ITc 1 3 Tx0 UoL61 Jo isoddr 1T-T2 TIT DtUEISJJ ).O q.Otxs[ 5x0II 14t0fl Jo .Irt03 DT.) 1. J5 ioçstoop 014 WOI) oLGi J10 172 0O.I tItddT 'II, Io(od) 0 tt01.0tp9txflf osodcI TZIVi T VINtTZNL J0 JiflOD HO' iIL J\II !J°) 141±l a - - cattlo could not be used to pay Nyan'ahus debt because the cattle did not balone to him. It is true that llyang'ahu acted improperly in iiaidin: over the 4 cattle to the ràspondont when after they were attachad he was orderc)a by the court to keep custody of thcrn pcndin final decision of the ourt. But it hac also boon shown that iyan 'ahu was eccordingiy• punished for that misconduct. The question of ownership of the cattic in question wqs q scprto and fundamental ones Since the court found as a fct that the cattle didbolong not to iIyan'ahu but to the rosiDondont hon the correct view appears to ho that the cattle should be rostocd to the respondent, the true owner, It is for those reasons thatI would uphold: the judgment of the District Court and acccrdin.,ly Igismiss the appeal with costs. Delivered in ourt this 28th day of 'january, 1971, chin, Judo