19791218 TZHC Mwanza

. /. .. J4iiL tD3tp Setj q.xnoo ent ptm t?DdcIe puooBs e s -t sti ou pue CS?O SUfl. JO ptoOat aqj. JO 9ulp eg a aql. U jo xsos -tu s O. puaT aseo sit. Jo OUSWOItO at- . n PIrIOM op O .OtZ XO3 9OUpTA Stfl. BXOUiii Sj .9UTPaO00U M( qpnbi S Oüpt19 suoçqpps tfl. oj suosz :ET ptoox ou ptp jxnoo e(pttddns •sisstdue) 'aoupt tSuocr . : iaq ;S.t 4 tzM ut paploo ga i'suoz xo; io janO0 .Otistp Dives alfl. AJttEO O pu . Ouptta uottpL -j -,L o. qxriOo RaewTid at. ottp o. (s) — taMod eA.eq tis nOO otzstp ops-rn ItcIth s.t SO DO toxx u —gss ;o ()Li 'utptop op xoj:suosx st pxooiz Isziw .xoo pts - [eUOP.TPPP a. TSt O. pptO)p I. ZflO3 3IO liT -W- ga-cnbax 1.OTtM 96t s.xno3 sxi9s,, 10 - )tas jo stxo -tstciod oputuv st. putt;uç Z.Stw pua ;o BOUDPTAD 9t. jo uotd0ei uotsstcr ciq. jdgooe i 'idoidut ss stu Ixnoo lueTladde q aOupttB alqj. ,ro uOt.dOtLI p.tuqns sq •I'UtTBdd0 IO T9uttQO ..ptISt?t 8 ttL opasaiMax SM t. jo uotstoap ai.. 'isdde jo tst xq.j u2ptt o. puouuns Se& ol. ,aqejCq xeqsTae&apies. pt . fTsdib .. tfl. ioj puno; rnoo et ° ndsip :t jo dttsz;ut4o tfl. o. se JtSB. o. pTs3 ou st.t c I4BtIaM nio3 ewj j sçxsi ndstp ut equ.sts at.. ut xiq psq SUtt.V?W UpT1OdSI 9q. Y[ttM 3 TOUn TUI1.Sd StTq wo; idStp uç 914 T petawç pit suo uSTIdcI f JWI1èI M ro ri • • • • •• •• • 0000 I II• •o I I • • • • ••• ( G .o - i LHdaof I....S...S00.I,.I'SS•.S.IISOIOOO {IDfl!)l OI (L6t ;o çcj *ON iadd tttü ut . qon JO •xno3 OtXSrj tfl JO UOtStOt uioi) 6L6t j o LC P om nIIAID ( 3d) VZMVtA c/ - / IWZM'YJ JO iflD HDIH Hql NI 1 5- - 2 * from that of the first appellate oouit, I fitid that the findings of the trial court a. fully justified by the evidence on record. The evidence was properly evaluatd and th findings reached are fully suppnrted by the 9iidei4 The i'ikidingë of the appellaft court on the other hand are infl(ienced by the aditiona1 evidence that had been inproperly received. Accordingly I find nerit in the appeal which is hereby allowed with cos4 Th?. judg:ent ------ of theppeiiatEoourt is hereby reversed and set asidet. and that of tH#- tTJal couphe id. 4 ILi ( V / YA HYA R UBA iIJ JUDGE LWANZA 11th Noveaiber, 1980 9 CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL DISTRICT REGISTRAR WANZA 4 C ft IN THE HIGH (JOU]T OF 2!1. NIA T iIrT:LiZA (Pc) CIVIL A:I[L NO. 38 OF 1979 (Prom the decision of the District Court of Kwimba at Ngudu in Civil AppeaJ. No.. 4 of 1979. SHABANI ISSA ..,. ................APPIL1NT VERSUS BUZIN7A YABI ................ IESPONDENT J U B C- M E N T J . The respondent sued the appellant for recovery of damages csua'd by the appellant' s cattle to his crops. He claimed a total of shs. 3 9 200/• and the trial court awarded this stun. The appellant sent his appeal to the District Court • His ground was thathe h-d already paid the rs,ondent 2 bags of mtama therefore the claim in court es superfous. The District Court ruled that the Primary Court had taken into account the value of the two bags when awarding the damages. N vexthe1es the appellate District Court felt that there was no relib1e assessment of the extent of deeges caused to the cropsend ruird that the award was xce'rii. This -- s reduced to shs. 15 00/=. The respond nt did not complain of this rducton but the appellarrt appealed further to this Court. I don't find anything in the appeal worth considering, and I disniss it with costs to the respondent. (( T P 1 A. JIJDGE \ ZA ; U 11D:C: 1 1 ER 197