joyce elias micheal vs gunya bucheyeki 2023 tzhc 22218 30 october 2023

joyce elias micheal vs gunya bucheyeki 2023 tzhc 22218 30 october 2023

The appellant failed to prove her claim for 105 sacks of paddy on the balance of probabilities, as the evidence and agreement only supported a claim for 83 sacks, and the lower courts properly evaluated the evidence and applied the correct legal standards. There was no misdirection or miscarriage of justice warranting interference with the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

Citation
joyce elias micheal vs gunya bucheyeki 2023 tzhc 22218 30 october 2023
Parties
Appellant: Joyce Elias @ Michael; Respondent: Gunya Bucheyeki
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
30 October 2023
Procedural Posture
PC Civil Appeal / Second Appeal (high Court) From District Court, Originating From Primary Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Standard of Proof in Civil Cases, Privity of Contract, Costs in Civil Litigation, Evaluation of Evidence
Source Language
English
Civil Law Contract Law Breach of Contract Standard of Proof in Civil Cases Privity of Contract Costs in Civil Litigation Evaluation of Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joyce Elias @ Michael

Appellant

Gunya Bucheyeki

Respondent

Procedural Posture

PC Civil Appeal / Second Appeal (high Court) From District Court, Originating From Primary Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lower courts properly evaluated the evidence regarding the number of sacks of paddy owed and the amount due
  2. 2 Whether the appellant proved her claim on the balance of probabilities
  3. 3 Whether costs were properly awarded

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to prove her claim for 105 sacks of paddy on the balance of probabilities, as the evidence and agreement only supported a claim for 83 sacks, and the lower courts properly evaluated the evidence and applied the correct legal standards. There was no misdirection or miscarriage of justice warranting interference with the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Appellant to pay costs