19890721 TZHC Dar es Salaam2

• I nq r1J£ Ill GH COUTIT Of TAl~~~A 1 1 AT DAR ES SALAAM (PC) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 20 OF 1988 (From the decision of tl1e District Co~t of MOROGORO at MOROGORO in Civ:i,l Appeal No~ 43 o~ 87) Original from Mvomero Pro (Jou.rt Qiv. Case No!6/87 EMMANUEL MAHGWE DIIIONDA ••o•••~ .. •••••• ... ,AP})ELLANT '·•. '; versus RAJABU A~ MNY.Al\iVULA • • 0 b o O •• ' t I>•<, c •.o • 4 • 0 .RES;PON:OENT JUDGMENT BAIIATI'2 J. The appellant Emmanuel Mangwe Dihoncla is c!.i.?£3.f.',ti~·ied lTi th the judgment of the District Court whj,ch reversed tho 4i~~~ion ·.,.· .... of the Primary Court which gave judgment for the appellant. 'l1he facY~s a.re that the responc.7.ent Hajabu Mp.yamvtµa stood surety for 0110 person who llad been arrested :i,.n connection wi'th the tb.eft of a sewing maolline belonging to the appellant., T'ue allcgecl tJ.:.ief was ac!)prehended and· taken to ·c:.ie Police Station and the respondent stood surety for b;L11-. Then the thief escapecl and was never seem again nor was tho ocming machine of. the appellant fou,..d because when the alleged thief was ~es·~ecl he waa not found with the selTing ma.chine. The appellant then filed a sui -',; U{;-ainst the respondent claimin2,· shz. 30,000/= from the respondent was '!;lla:~ H was the respondent who ll.ad facilitated the escape of the alleged thief by s·~anding surety for .b.im. In his def once the respondent i:iaid -~llat he stoocl surety for the a.llcgec:.. thl.ef by -'i;he name Samuel because S~el daughter. . had a child with the respondent's The respondent entered in·iio a bond of shs~~,_500/=. . Then Daniel • t) escaped. The Prh~ary court helJ that the respondent had caused the Sewing macdne:: of the appellant to disappear and gay~ jude,men~ for the appellant. On appeal, the District CourJ.; held that the rQsponc1en-'.; uas not liable to Pa.Y for tho lost Sewing machine because all the r-espondent had do_ne w~ to s·~and surety for -~ho accused and not to guarantee to p~ :.:'or nha-'i; the thief had stolen in ca.se the thief rans awa;r.,. I have heard the appellant and -~he responde~t ., on a.ppeal and I have scrutinized tho grounds of appeaJ.. I am in full agreement wi~lih the decision of the District Courta By signing ~ bail bond of sh.s.2t500/=· as surety for the accus·ed Samuel, the respondent was promising that if the accused does not come to court ho the respondent will have -co pey.shs,~,500/= to the Police. When a person signs a bail bond as surety for an accused person, the Buxety does not promise or guarantee that he will Pa.Y what is alloged -'i;o ha:ve been stolen by the accused if the accused escr:tpes.. Th,0refore there is no basis ' :for the present claim as rightly ciecided 1Jy the District Court. This appeal is therefore dismissed with costsf A. B l ~ JUDGE ·~::·, ~: •: ... DAR ES SALA.AN 21 July, 1939. Appellant - present in person~ Respondent~ absent, notified.. I certify ~'hat it is a true and oo:rr~ct 9opy of the original.