19730824 TZHC Arusha
The appellant's admissions regarding the previous judgment and the signed agreement naming the respondent as owner preclude him from disputing the respondent's title to the machine.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19730824 TZHC Arusha
- Parties
- Appellant: Elias Sokoni; Respondent: Aijimasi Ngilisho
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 24 August 1973
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Second Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Rent, Title to Property, Appeals
- 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.
Parties
Elias Sokoni
Appellant
Aijimasi Ngilisho
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent had title to the machine entitling him to claim rent from the appellant
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant's admissions regarding the previous judgment and the signed agreement naming the respondent as owner preclude him from disputing the respondent's title to the machine.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- appeal dismissed with costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
- C t IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA (pc) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4 OF 1973 (From original Civil Case No, 112 of 1971 of the District Court of Moshi District at Moshi.) ELIAS SOKONI ... ........................ APPELLANT versus .AIJIMASI NGILISHO ...... 0 ..............RESPO1'DENT JUDGMENT Bramble, J. This is a second appeal against a judgment in a -primary court in a claim for rent of a machine. he appellant in evidence-in-chief disputed the respondent's title to the machine alleging that whatever transaction there was was between himself and the • respondent's father. In reply to questibns put by the court he admitted that he had been previously sued by the i'espondent for rent for the same machine and lost the case; he did not appeal against that decision. He • also admitted that he signed an agreement, which was not put in evidence, and which named the respondent as the owner of the machine and specified the rent which the appellant had to pay. In the face of these admissions he could not successfully dispute the respondent's title. The grounds of appeal have repeated the evidence which the appellant gave at the trial and which the court fully considered. There was no alternative but to find in the respondent's favour. The issues were of fact only and the decision is fully supported by the evidence. I find that there is no substance in this appeal and dismiss it with costs. - - 1 1. '1e ARUSHA 24/8/73 (C. B. BRAMBLE) ,JUDGE.