19851220 TZHC Mwanza
- Citation
- 19851220 TZHC Mwanza
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 20 December 1985
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 20 December 1985
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The appellant failed to prove, by credible evidence, that the respondent received the claimed quantity of bricks. The document relied upon was not proved to be authentic or issued by the respondent. In the absence of other evidence, the claim could not be sustained.
Court disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent.
02
Material facts
Parties
Gershom s/o Abayo
AppellantM/S Utigi Diary Farm
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Claimed Value of Bricks: TZS 9,873.25
- Number of Bricks Claimed: 39,493
- Number of Bricks Admitted by Respondent: 2,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the appellant proved the supply of 39,493 burnt bricks to the respondent under contract
- 02
Whether the documentary evidence produced by the appellant was sufficient to establish the claim
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant claimed to have supplied 39,493 burnt bricks to the respondent and relied on a chit as proof of delivery and entitlement to payment.
- Respondent
- The respondent denied receiving the claimed number of bricks, admitted only 2,000, and challenged the authenticity and origin of the chit produced by the appellant.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
general law of evidence
Documentary evidence must be proved to be authentic and attributable to the party against whom it is tendered.
- 02
general civil procedure
The burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish their case on a balance of probabilities.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The appellant failed to prove, by credible evidence, that the respondent received the claimed quantity of bricks. The document relied upon was not proved to be authentic or issued by the respondent. In the absence of other evidence, the claim could not be sustained.
Court disposition
appeal dismissed
- Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 20 December 1985
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
TZHC
Judgment· 20 December 1985
J ~\ ~~+ t~~~«' :i IN THE HIGH COURT: OF "TA~Zti.NIA I AT MWANZA. i,I. ,I . (~.C.) CIVIL .Al?PtAL ~O. :.~ OF 19'81 (From the decision of the Dist~ict Court .<Of Tari!Jl@,fi!t: II ., Civil Case No. 4 of 1979). '.1 1, l,L GERSHOM s/o ABAYO O d. 0 0 o0 0 0 0 o ·!· o .: • 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 AEE'ELLANT I I :;
I
VERSUS M/S UTlGI DIARY FARTJ! • 0 e • 0 0 e • ji e ·' ~I e • • ,:11 ,1 O • e • o e e e e RESPONDENT
JU DGEME . ~7rj/!) MUNYERAi. J. ,; i ; The appellant sued the respondenti on a contract. It was his case that on 31/3/?fi he supplied 39, 93': burnt bricks worth Shs. 9873/25 ~ 1 to the respondent company and they r:Ffused to pay. In their defenoe the respondent denied that they were/i s~pplied with the number of bricks olaimed, they ndmi tted only 2000. The :appellant called no witness but I produced a chit depicting that the rjespondent received 39,493 bricks at the price of -/25 each. The res~l°ndent desputed the genuiness of that chit saying it did not come frtjjm their office (although it bears the company's rubber stamp). The ttjia~ Magistrate rejected the doc~~ ment and dismissed appellant's claiJ in its entirety. He appealrq. ;f this Court. His complaint is that tlhe ,trial Magistrate was wrong :] ·/ Hl .•· ... rejecting the document. I ,j As I have said above the appeJ.//lant did not call any witpes_13, He only relied on the doc11ment. Th~ chit is just a plain paper· b~_a- · 'i : ring no official headed title of the company. The appellant:. d}q.. p.!;>t '1 • • J say -who signed it on behalf of the tjespondent, he simply said it: :was a clerk who went to collect the bridks~ I am in agreement with the 'I . trial Magistrate that the document ias .·• not proved as against the res- 11. .: peodent. There being no other evidence. the appellant's case had no Ii legs to stand '?:.l'l• It was rightly dismissed. Like the trial Court I I .dismiss the appeal with costs to thJ r~spondent. I , I : ii I :1 i ' It •. ,:·F MUSOMA. ii : JUDGE. 20/12/85. '] .,- ..,. ........... . 'i ~ , • . ·· .r :.. )•·:.i ., I ' ,, '' ,I ·.1, ·' I.\ .I "
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.