19790309 TZHC Mbeya

,. I amio sp peAoicI pt queptxodse.i TVIqT qqop ou eq pinoo ea:eT41 faa0jGaqqT 'ptooe.x uo sqoJ aqT tb •uo -çqess etq ul.rçjuoo oq. - tqueumoop ° r3' - eouepçAe TTl8PUE)d@PLlT OU stt eion 'eq. jc Irnri uioj TTTm eq. 1.,qPnoq et paom tmto s 1 uiIedd aqT uio.xJ potcIo quedd po.iod OTOqm NT 2uTJmP pooieue pq euçnoux otq OTTjoad jo P'ei Aq o TTTM GqT Jo ois jo sp0000.xcl jo q xetflço quopuode.x etfl. o.trçtqou PeTunooae SLj e} 1IOAS tOJ tGSfl a:oTju ixd pç oq euitoui etq PTOS eotrçs sq uiiedd p.xooex eqj. oq up.x000 °VM s q petaptxe. ouepAe £itxeuinoop etq pue IF, 'VM Jo Suourclseq. opp. .66 TpUPI UT ' 2U-C:qaom txeqq stt o quepuodse.i eq. Jo oouosq eqq Trç euçt(OThIi OLIT JO pu poqsno oq pe.x tp seoaes jo ui.xoj eqq. nx] xoçnqçauoo SjTlMTTadde qqq q.nq -. qtxepuodsax etq Rq peqnq.xqttoo .tcieio .&euom ei. tnoq '.xedoztd dçt etxqxed oJuT s px et - queurnoop pu-e ito tqoq - eouopAe eTdur tren. e.ioui st exet tatrqznd PODOTTu sTtT ¶uepuodsei etq Jo nxosnloxe eq. o. - iiedod iuosed sp pexoep eonrç p?t WeTTOddL, L[oçtM ITTw ezçui - Jo DuTmelpand e sPaemOT peqnquoo STPaøOlTle pt qnxeptxodse.x et q - t jo ptmjezt e SUTaq =/9c'c.ss IoJ (qtxeptxodsea) aSaqulTS s 9 TavqD Sq urcio -eqq- BUTmolle Txnoo OtqSç(J TZOCLPI JO uosoop eqq TsuTuDp ST Itaddv sqf, - ' r 'a[niviw (jjTwrTa c.'o) 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SflS8A (upueJea T.to) L qc TAql7rjrjL iclV 00000000000000000000000 °VflLTI NONIVS d0 aJvasIrw/u 'OLLMMVN H' v ioia (cL6t. Jo j7 • OsleD rcTo - T,Tn00 qot.iqstç TZOCLX jo uoçsoep eq. urozr) 9L6L io L oi nivaaav nIIAIo 'Y22flAI LV VIMYZNVLL do ILUI1OD HDIH allLI II V / C Appellant' s claim that the case was resjudicata was rebutted by the documentary exhibit the appellant himself had tendered in court - purporting to be judnent in the alleged earlier case. The alleged • document indicated that the earlier case in fact related to a loan and not to the machine - the subject of this casei. I must rernark,in passing though, that appellant is lucky that the other party did not seek to sue for his share in he profits accrued during the years appellant ianaged the mill The respondent ought alsd to have sued for his share in the proceeds of the alleged sale of the machine to the 3rd party. For the reasons outlined above the appeal is dismissed with costs Delivered in court at Mbeya this 9th dar of March, 1979. H. J. 11WAKIBETh JUDGE