19840803 TZHC Mwanza
1 S H / IN THE HIGH COJRT OP TANZANIA AT MWANZA APPELLATE JUPLISDICT ION (ic) CIVIL APkEAL NO. 49 OF 1982 (From the decision of the District Court of Tarime at Tarime in Civil Appeal Nc 88 of 1981 - Before H. F. Nyalusi, Esq.,. District Magistrate and Shirati Primary court Original Civil Case No.245/ 81 ) JACOBO...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19840803 TZHC Mwanza
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 3 August 1984
- 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
1 S H / IN THE HIGH COJRT OP TANZANIA AT MWANZA APPELLATE JUPLISDICT ION (ic) CIVIL APkEAL NO. 49 OF 1982 (From the decision of the District Court of Tarime at Tarime in Civil Appeal Nc 88 of 1981 - Before H. F. Nyalusi, Esq.,. District Magistrate and Shirati Primary court Original Civil Case No.245/ 81 ) JACOBO OCUERE. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •. . APPELLANT VERSJJS OBAYO ODERO. . . • . . . . . •• • • • .. . . . . . . . . , . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . ESPO1\DENT I 3 U DGI4 B NT MUNYERA 9 J. The appellant was sued before Shirati Primary Court. The respondent sued him for recovery of 8 head of cattle damages for -' enticement. It was his case that on 26/6/81 the appellant enticed away his wife Heiena and till the day of hearing this appeal she is nowhere to be seen. Th,e appellant resisted the claim saying he only happened to escort the respondent's wife to her sister. That he did so because she was fleeing after being severely beaten by the husband (respondent). The court heard several witnesses who testified that they had convened a baraza to discuss therespondent's complaint. The'appe1lant confessed before them that he enticed the respondent's wife. The court unanimously found for the respondent and the appellant's apeal to the Distrit Court failed. He appealed further to this court. Mr0 Ragarabamu represented him. The counsel argued that there was no evidence to support respondent's claim that the appellant had love ffai: s with' his wife. Both lower courts believed the evidence adduoed by the respondent. , T1.is being a qurstion of fact, this court finds •no reason to differ. The appeal is dismissed with costs. F. A. IVtt1NERA JUDGE '