19730329 TZHC Mwanza

'tc\- i: :i -I"T • ".'T - .'iNIl AT lvi NL APPELLATE' JURIDICTI0N -11971. (c) CIVIL APL NO.. 105 0 (Prom the decision of tha District C.ourt qf forth Mera at Tarimo in C1vi1An-.'al No...7 80.f 971 - 3f0rQ A. G 1 ...Korosso'sq; Resident Magistratr'. dnd Trirne Primary, Court Civil 'Ca,so No.16/71). ISI(AS/0HITA ....... s g....r.:i (Orignai Dofojidant) NANGI CHACHA..... ...;.... .. . ... . ... . ,. .. . .... RFSPOND'NT (Or1 iginal P1aintif) JUDG3I ?NT. l—Ki.ndy, J. . . . . This is a second anneal by Issack Mwita. He was sued by the rosnondent in-.rc act. of a claim of Shs.330/— naid to himby the resnondont, . Th tr'i-al court allowed the resnondont's claim in.: full but the ae113t but reduced the resnondentts claim to Shs..270/— with - of costs. The- anellant took his anneal to this court.. The resnondent was a decree holder in a cart 'in civil case,. He wished to execute that decree. hen ho w.is making enuiri3s about nnallan, who claimed to b'a'Public latter driter and Advisor o what was: discussed was a matter of disnute, but the trial court felt that the annellant had misled the rosnondant when ho c]aimxl that he was the agent of a Court Broker, .and that he was aiithorisod.te:,snaak and transect business on b3half ofa Court Brokor,ac1 that since ha had not nrovid.ad the requisite service - i,-e.. to effect exbutjon of decree in jals favour - tnero failure of c5nsd6ation, end,

therefore, the annollant should rö'nd the full amount of..Sh.s. 330/— nraid for the alleged .Q',ntreif: sice. The annellant's stnd'was (and still is) that ho hIinad'no such ms'enrosentation, and that he had iven advice, written letters and managed to obtain coay of judnont and decree from the relevant court for execution nurnose, and, therefore, the sum of Shs. 330/— W3S a reasonable charge for services rendered. Howover, the annellate court held that there was no misrenresontetion and that it wab a genuine cisc of misunderstinding between the two sides as to the natu.re of the services sought and obtained from the annellant. He held that due to this and due to the fact that tiac anncllant had rendered some visible s arvid th * o'-ti1'rOo consideration and f that the annollant should retain nart of the neid money on the basis of quantum moru.it. He alleced his. anne1. On anneal to. this court, the nnCllnt said that the amount of She.. 330/— was a f-air charge for the services rendood and, therefore the lower, court, should not have directed that he should refund the whole or nart of the money naid to him. He urged that this anneal should b-a allojod fally. I agree jith the views of the annollat District Court. It was a clear caso of misIndorstanding of the obliations of, the service contract antorod into between the am'-ol1ant and the re3pondont. There was no evidence that the

annellant had doliverately set out to mislead the rasnondOnt.- But it was a tyne of transaction which could osil be misunderstood by an ordinary layman. The role of the Court Broker and that nlayed by the annellant can easily bo misunderstood.. I mast C-)fl±'OSS that I have been unablo to sac what is the status of a 'ublic rit r and Advjsor' in law although the annellant climed that he was authorised to nerform the dtios * whatever they are - of a public writer and advisor by virtue of Btisinosa-N.mes (Registrtion) Ordinance, Can. 2130- vlhatovor the case- the annGllant as -the learned annlltO mgistrate held, . . . -. ,. rendered useftx. soviöst3 th re nentaI houh execution of the doree w-as not ac.ove4. He advised him iow to proceed with executions of his droe, and mnage'd te sure a Court Judgment and d'ecree f o r the Drose. Byond this I caiet 'S3 hYt so' he did.. In all the circumstances 1 thore?bo, ti chrge'of Si'fs .30/t'is exóessivo and onsc.onable, br any stan1ads.;The resrondent ntc4 .o effect cxcatiou o decree by ettac'hd&n-t ef hdad o ctt1e. 'ftor naying the fall Shs. 330/—, which was not., by, ord.iry standards, a small sum for a reasant lik3 tha resrond3nt, he wp .till reqii.rOd 9y farther chrgas for aôirt Broker when eventually a Court Braker h-id t'eiohim.. Tnre w's 1 thorQoe 1 reasnablo cau-se, for the roson nt-to think that somewhere somebody is canitIising on

his unfortunate nosition. He semad to hva been a good bait for all and sundry. I, aroe with the ssessment of the district coiirt that Shs. 601— for tha sorv ndred was quito reasonab]Yc,' and that the annellant shaul4 refund Shs. 270/— to the res-ondent as ordorodo I sac no valid ground for vrying that dacison, is result, this a-neal is dismissad. is noither' narty anr,earo, I.mka no order as to costs. Dolive'rd inC.ieurt on the 29th day, ef March, 1973, - , , ,(z. N. JUDGt. • 0' . , 0 , ..'' . . .,, .... ......... .... ....... ............ . ' a 1i Both parties be notifioditiit.he rsalts of '€hs anneal. ............, ........ ............ ............. .. ....' •0 - I . - - 7 • Mwanza. ( . l_idy). 29th Maroh 3. 1 - . 0 •, 0_ • •IILI .. . 4. ,. av ...:, .A . • . 1 '" 0 ....... . ...... ..... • 0 ' ':. 0 • • , I •0• •d •fl: 0 . 0 . '': •_ -' • • - U U ..I \, nl 1_I_i • :f!