19940330 TZHC Dodoma1

IN THE J~aGE CCUHT OF' T}.. m.,ANL1 AT DODOi-1'\. (T' C) CIVIL JG.TJ"i! . \L NO. 870F'93 ( From thG decisiru of the District Court of Dodoma o. t Dodorilo. in civil Appeal No. 21 of 1993. ) Versus J U D G I'I E I:J T The respondGnt ;~irnon s/o Chnmlulu suocessful ly sued the c.,;,pel lnnt Emrn:1nu0l s/o r!to.ngwo. o.t I1fo.tm1~ulu ~ i'.'i;_Jo.r-:r court in Dodoma District in a c1nim of sbs. 70,800/= which the respondent lost when be wc,.s unlo.wfully nttncked by the appellant. The fiPst ap·.-:,eo.l to Doc.o,·:10. District Court was dismissed nnd hence this seccncl. o.··.:)co.l. 1,i!ho.t hn:ppened wa.s thnt en 7/2/1993 both the o:p-pello.nt nnd respondent met at o. p,,·,;1be h, .. use. ~-11ile theI'G ancl for no appar,3nt rt:::as,m t:1e appel lc.nt 2.ssa.1..1lt0d tlle respo- ndent and the respondent J.1;1.d tc• Pan awa.y on his bicycl0. Later it is said he discovered that ~hs. 70,800/= which he ho.d in his pockt)ts wo.s i:1is.:,ing cJ1d surmised that rnieht have droppod dcwn wl1en tte so.id resµonclent ins being assnult0d by thG nppellc,nt. He reporte,,:]. t~J the ton cell lGader and he e,_cl;~1ittecl to hc.ve l::f'.(1. :J.r:rn£>.1.1ltcd the i..,'."s·: c,n,~.ent .... I -•. ? <[ 2 /;_t the first o.ppE,llnte court and nt this Court, counr3el fer the appellant llr. Rwryongezn subr:1itted first thnt ther,:i wo.s no evidence to show that t1Je respcndent ho.d any money before tLe fic;bt ii secondly th2t even if thnt evidence exioted, th0r-e w::is no evidence to s1.1ow tllo.t such r.1oney got lust <luring the fi.c;ht o Both those points wore c1isr:1i.'3sec. b-.r the fi::....r::t n.ppellc.te cuurt as I'ebulcus c.nc1 held tlJat since tho lower c·om.-,t believed that rus- "P cmdsnt had been C:.t.:ins business before he cirri ved at the pornbe shop"' then .that evidence i!c1.s cr1:1tHblc, evi<.1ence. I o.r,1 unable to subscribe to the views of the first n.ppellote court. Cogent evid0nce wcs r0quiretl to ostc- blisl.1 that the respondent hecd shs. 70.800/= in his ·,1cck- ets o.nd that s,'ce got lost durinc, the ficht or atte.ch. It ,Jns not enough for the rf)SponC.'.-,nt just to ti1ention that he is deinc. bisinoss :-!it>out clisclosinc 1,-i):;at ty()e 1 cf business it was and hew he co.me::~ -per dc..y. I tried tc elicit such evidence frcm the res)ondc,nt durine; the hearing of tb2 o.ppeo.l .::md he sto.teu. tl10.t lle deals in businGs::,: of buying and selling goc.ts at cnttle auctions: 1.1lw trial cciu:r-t slir:--uld hnve inquir0(l r.10rc, frcrJ the res:-- 1 p ondent tc know th no.ture o..r::d siZE., :if th,_c_~ busines,':l so tbat they cc:uld ~or:m o.n enlie;b:cened oyiinion o.s tc whe- ther inde0d hJd so rnuch m0ney in his ~ockets thnt dny. To acceqt the bo.re 1--rord of the rosp,:mclent wit.bout o.ny evidence to bo.clr it up wns unju.dicj_cus on the po.Pt c,f the two courta belcv u10re sG thnt thQ r:..:sponcknt iv.(l. cm uithout any reo.son. , -f~ _, .... r -:-J!J.,'.... -• ... · · • • f. ·•5:.-:·~d. . -. -!'~-1 ·, . ·-~i 3 .~;:;-.4:~·:--~~ ;Jomeo·ne couJ.d hnve·l picked his -p,o.colfets befur-e the f.tSFJCLUl t I/: occ~rr~d. ~p the respondent could have lost the money ~ before he arrived o.t the :')Ombe shop. In my vi0w tho ~ concluticn w1s unwo.rrnnted to the effect t;:10.t the r.10ney rr1ust h;:iv8 been lost clurine-; tl+e fight or nssnul t. In the event the appeal succeeds. I allow the o.ppenl with ccsts. The decisions o:f: the two couPts belm-I are set aside. 0r~er accordingly. ( i.f Tl.LU3AiIT L. J. ) J1J1)GE ........__.__.,__..,, i 30/3/1994. ,CJ.~. JucJ.gment .__::eliv0rod in c~10.nbers o.t Dodoma. in the pre~ence of both p~rties. JUDGE ----••-...i. . . - 30/3/19940 I certify tho.t this is c.. true ~nd. correct copy of the or~ginr..l judgement. DL?:='BI:.}T p-:;: 0 -:r:~?I'RAR -,,.,,------...;'4, ~· ............ ,. ........... ... . ~ Z.2/8/1997