19940523 TZHC Dodoma

IN THE HIGH COU.l'I' OF TANZANIA .Ji~1P~~- (PC) CIVIL .APP:~.\L NO. 2· OF 1994 (FROM THE l)"'JCL;IOH Q;..' ·fiD~ nI:3TRICT COURT OF .'.;;INZ~IDA A'l1 ,>INGI1)A IN CIVIL APP!ill NO~ 2/93 • O::TIGil'iJAL CIVIL CA8E NO~ 92/92 OF M~RYA PRL-LmY COURT• BE:FORE. I ,J t..J..~T.OJiAJ§~•-l)ISTRIQT MAGI,3TRATE • EMli:NUBL KiffiJl)A ••••••••••••••• A:?PELLANT versus RAMA %'\NI NTUN'DA ••.•••••••••• RESPON 1ENT JUl)GMEJ!! !1SOFFE1 J: On 20/5/94 when this appeal was called !or hearing I iir~ted. that its 1.etermination should proceed in the absence of the respondent after I was satisfied that attempts t~- serve him ha1 s• far proved futile., I did so in line with the provisious of _s •. 35 f"f the ~f:&~~-z-ateli~ Courts Act NO. 2 of 1984. Before the Mery-a Prim,u-y Court, Singiia,, the responi.ent unsuccessfull: . sued the appellant in a claim of nine bags of· maize wo:..-th Sha 18,000/= ieman1ed as compensation •. The cauoe of action was said to have arisen after the appellant was on 20/5/89 seen on the responient's farm which is said to be arouni 2 acres, _harveJting maize therefrom •. l.)isatisfied by the decision of the Primary Court, the respon1ent appealed to the Uistrict Court at Singi 'la. The ni.strict Court alll)wed him 6 bags of maize plus another shs 700/=J but since there Has eviience that the responient had since been paid 3 bags before a lncaJ. conciliation council (p('pularly lmown in that community as "Baraza la.Jadi ) prior to the filing of the 11 eivil. acgion before the said Primary Court., the Uistrict Court in the end result awar1ed him (the responient) 3 bags of maize plus shs 700/= only as hi.s finaJ. entitlement in the matter. The appellant is 1isatisfied by::- the decision ma-ie by the !Qi.strict Court and hence this, appeal. -.. This ap~eal is, in my considered &pinion, t~t?,lly unfounied •. As the learn~d l)istrict Magistrate sitting in the first appeal preperly remarked, the appellant must consider himself lucky by the respon1.ent I s, 1ooision to proceed against him by wa;y of civii action in what would &t~erwise be a r,u.rely cri.t~inal matter. Secon1ly, given the acreage •f ,,!.the farm in issue i.e. arouni 2 aeres," I think the award ()f 6 bags plus ........ 2/. 2 700/= to the responient is Li.ir & i i aa.oc1u,3.te. As it was a1rnitted. that the respon-1ent ha1 since been pai1 three bags (out of the 6 allowed by the m.strict Coll.L--t) it is my viet·r too th ,~t the remaining 3. bags of maize plus the 700/= 'iecree,i by the l)istrict Court to the respon:,1ent wouJ.1 be a fair an--Y concl'u.sive cnl to the matter. Accor1ingly I~fin1 nothing mat.eriaJ. to fault the 1eoi :,,ia,o;-o.f t.l'.14l leam.ed. 1liet:ru,-t m::i.gistrat~ that in the finaJ. event tho appollant shouli pay the responlent the remaining three be.gs of maizo plv.s the 700/= ; whose total value uas ~ut at shs 6, 700./=. The appeal is 1is:misse:la No crier is maie ,,s ,to Costs. 'i.3/5/1994 1'elivered~ The Appellant~ Present The Respon1ent - Absent.