19910716 TZHC Tabora
- Citation
- 19910716 TZHC Tabora
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 16 July 1991
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 16 July 1991
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The trial magistrate was correct in rejecting the appellant's evidence and accepting the respondent's corroborated claim of loan advancement.
Court disposition
appeal dismissed
02
Material facts
Parties
John Kimball
AppellantUnnamed Respondent
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Loan Amount: Shs 200,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether the appellant owed the respondent a loan of Shs. 200,000/=
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant denied owing the respondent and claimed the suit was fabricated.
- Respondent
- Respondent asserted that a loan of Shs. 200,000/= was advanced to the appellant, corroborated by witness evidence.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Resident Magistrate's Court judgment
Credibility of evidence and corroboration by witnesses is essential in loan disputes.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The trial magistrate was correct in rejecting the appellant's evidence and accepting the respondent's corroborated claim of loan advancement.
Court disposition
appeal dismissed
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 16 July 1991
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· 16 July 1991
---------·- .A.T TlJ:ORA rr/c. 01.:.r. ~?-IO. 4 OF 1989 . J021\f :P. KDtJI • .. • • • • • • • APP-a:LLAl~ vs. 16/7/1991 KOJiosso, :r. \ 'This is a.rt app3al locl.2,-ad by the Appellant,' 011e .rohn ICimb1 1 who was Suocessfully sued by tli.0 R0spondent bafo:ro the Resident Ma;d,.strata•s Court, I Shieya.nga. Hel'X)G this appeal by tho .Appellant •. /l~;is,., appoal lacks merot. The Rasponlent•s: evidence as -to th.a .loan of Shs~•:·.~;,.oo,o/. advanced to tile !ppalla.-rit by ~ &1a1_18s" _. •9'~~~ by. ~ . . . ~o• (P. W, 2) who wes present i'lt ~ti toua1 •i '1o liep♦~dt at .............,.. .....,............ ,......... ,... ~ - - - tho J3~oniolli ha.mod ovor tb.a sum of s1u,; 2001000 to ~a _\'ppallant • . •-~ ~ • _!P 'Ile !ppo!!ant wtda! • ~,-i ~:~luta·on & dqcumant :Ith Pi-wasn't hia 1 ha should h.evo oe.U-od as;f'... li!8 tallow worka:r:a, it a!Vt who woutd be aoqe,intoo. with his si~tm-o. · Tho .laarnod trial l:Ic$'istratt'3 was xi~t in rejocting tho .AV?o);la.nt•~ evidamB. that the suit ec~i11St him we,s tho prod.uot of fa.'llrioatio~ Tb.a lG-ftor alla:godly wri tton to tho Rospordont by thd Api,ollant on 13/6/88 could ha.~ boon motlV?,tccl by tho Ap;1cllant•s clotermination to drown tho Rospon:lant•s ri~t or rovange a.gair..s t him ( tho rtcsponcL011t). Appeal dismissed. A. a. a. maosso, .JUD(ro 16/7/1991 '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.