19730411 TZHC Mwanza2

AT. ihhZA (pa) Civuit APPAL NO, 42 OF 1971 (Froi the decision of bh District Court of:horth Mdra et Taritno in Civil rc il 'o, 146 of 1:)70.. ,f.i, iaj, sq. D.M. & Nyamiura Pr, Court Civil C of 1970). i B . APi'CLh hIT versus MIGCKO n, ii iI - JJ)GiLeT, L-KIDY, J. iIuIi. on Bwiri apPeleu aainst th 3Ut li1i et the iiiti - ict .......-. Court of ioethiioz2 In h. 104er court, he saooeesfdlly eliineu sn ox, but the appellate court allowec4. the appoel by t .....iaspondent. The apeilnt th -. eponent ier frieni;. In 1946, the rponuent itierred. duu t is aiict tilet th6 looncu un ox to his friend,., ftc op11nt vies t bst •;...ii, ihetril couit accsp -teu th evicfn..of t appellant, os Cu oftae oy •tht -0 £ijS - vJifO anu son to the effect nat appellont 1oen. he a11eecr ox to the respondent, ;o slauter it for the usts .no wer_ assnolau at tne weddinb corLniony. Ihe app(Mate couut, in a cn.c1*u11y consicierect jaLgemnt, tiit the tfi.d court erred in acco .. )tin6 the evidence of j cpondent. It alloned the appeal on the .. oasi that the aviuslice was totally unrolisole on iiorefors, on dance of probabilities, did not esta1isn the c1ia for one ox. The appellant orueu tht on tac evidence ...... the appeal of the respondent should not h:ve be.-n alloac, i! reopect, I dioree, In the first pL.ce, the aliaeL. trurioaction toon place in 146 - the d to is given as th; 12th ci .y cfJnne 1946, :inc that t1L,C bus appelLint h..d not claimed, this ainoint fro the responcent, hure1y, if aa hci each a claim, he woul not h..vs saitoci for ier1y 2 years coantin from the y r h filed 'this suit. lthougth. th ,pe11An alleu ht trn. ox iS pid in tLi pr.seiicc of iin peopl., the jll:nh; oas only a .1e to ociac his jjife one his s -n toapport him. If people h.d itiiooci the lleca t' .isction, he sho.j,e h..v eec-n e1.:; 'to p ociae itnssoas other 6nan tLis mo •re m.m .. rs (-_L7 his f mlj. ie only outsiaer .itness (P ,4) si th..t nne7 n.thin of tLi ,. ilc-. tiansactjon. . 1e,ea.ed appoll. ta tr-ns i•.s tu. learneu, aapclLite magistrate pointed et, it a 6 salciom e... t wife would give eviuencs adverse -to tha i..terests of c-r husb-nd, eh positio1 of mife, as o witnsss is controversial. In the eLicei.stnnco of this it, unsaf to h -r aiUano, s for he .vidc-nc of the appelL.nt 's son, a6ain &s the 1ce,.nci trial magiotrte .ihtl poin'teu out, .ust have been a child of t.ncier years in 1946. his o...louLition showed 'tLi't he wo1d have been 9 yours OlLi, if the elleCcci son haci given his ago correctly. It was empossiule the't us oulci hey... cnoan of the allageci tranoactasn. Ph.. eppo1l.nt alleged that the ox he loaned, was slauChtored for the feast, but he h.ne to concede that i - c was the duty of tue brother of the ro.pondent to suply the cuatoiarj ox. If so, -then it should have been •cLi brothers of the r.poadant -ho aoafd have a proched him and not tho .. o. ndent himself if the saici brothers could not have obtained such en ox from any ocher scarce. I would, therefore, agree that the appellate court was right in holding against the appellant. I would further add.thet the appellant's claim was time earreci (sc-c Section 3 of thci schedule to the hagietrates' Courts(Limuitation of Proceeuings under customary Law) jEulen, 1964, having Govaruaoiat 1 , otica io. 311 of 1964., itout showing sufficint culse. for eaLty t±i apel1ant shoula not havq permitted. to ClCiu Vic ullegea ox and h&vin6 prsod the recor I.o not find aiwhe re a'atu why tiie cuit cs not or coict not ba,file in time 'or ti5. o tnarsforL, this appe 1 is nismissed ..ith costs Delivered in Court, et lawanza, on the 11th d.y of April, 173, S 11thrii 1973 Z0N. L-iIiiJ JU.jJG. OrDih Appellant and the respondeno shbulu be notifiu of the oese1s of this apeal t1xoubh tii ctpective District Court -- -/2 lltii 4pril, l27J