19721010 TZHC Mwanza
The appeal was dismissed because the evidence of three witnesses corroborated the respondent's claim, leaving no doubt that the loan was made and not repaid.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19721010 TZHC Mwanza
- Parties
- Appellant: Johnny Aitda; Respondent: Ilal s/o Bundaka
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 10 October 1972
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Second Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Loan Repayment, Evidence, Appeal Procedure
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Johnny Aitda
Appellant
Ilal s/o Bundaka
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant owed the respondent Sh. 1,000/= as a loan
- 2 Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the loan transaction
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the evidence of three witnesses corroborated the respondent's claim, leaving no doubt that the loan was made and not repaid.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- no order as to costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
/x .° III HIGH COURT UP TA1'TZANIA I at Mwanza 0 (PC) CIVIL APFAL NO 162 OF 1971 (From the decision of the District Court of Kahama at Kahama in Civil Appeal No, 17 of 1971) Before P. M. Muehi Esq0, District Magistrate and Original Civil Case No, 10 of 1970 of the Primary Court of Zongomera District at Kahema JOHNNYAITDA00000000000000 0 0 000000000 Appe11an-t - versus ILALs/o BUNDAkA Respondent JUDGhENT onathanA7 J. - This is a second appeal from a unanimous decision of the primary court which gave judgement for the ; respondent on his claim for repayment by appellant of a sum of Sh, 1,000/= the respondent had allegedly lent him0 The District Hagistrate also sat t1i two. assessors and all three were agreed that the appeal before thorn had no real foundation, The respondents claim was that sometime in 1969 the appellant approached him asking for a loan of She, 1,000/= to enable him carry out an ä.gricultural project he said he was working on. He duly gave him such sum but there was no receipt made by the appellant0 The:.transaction was, however, witnessed by three other people one of whom was a ton-ceil leader. Repayment was to have been made in January, 1970 but anpellant failed to pay-up until he eventually denied evec borrowing the money from respondent, A I have said, there was no receipt given to respondent, but all the three witnesses of the respondent gave evidence which was wholly in harmony with the account of respondent and which seems to have loft the ial court in no I doubt that res:-oonden G had lent appellan - c a sum of Fhs, 1 9 OL0/= what decision is unassailable and as the memorandum raises nothing that \ras not be fore and fully considered by the lower courts the appeal is hereby dismissed, As the parties did not appear 9 I make no order as to costs. (P. M. Jonathan) 10th October, 1972 AG. JUDGI 4 "3