JOSEPH KASHINJE

JOSEPH KASHINJE

The respondent proved on the balance of probabilities that the appellants, acting together, forced him to pay Tshs. 2,000,000/=, and all are jointly liable to refund the amount; the concurrent findings of the lower courts were correct and not perverse or unjust.

Citation
JOSEPH KASHINJE
Parties
1st Appellant: Joseph Kashinje; 2nd Appellant: Machera Nyerere; 3rd Appellant: Magasha Masisa; Respondent: Kashinje Mwenda
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
30 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal (high Court) From District Court, Originating From Primary Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Burden of Proof, Restitution, Unjust Enrichment, Concurrent Findings, Standard of Proof in Civil Cases
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Tort Law Burden of Proof Restitution Unjust Enrichment Concurrent Findings Standard of Proof in Civil Cases

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Kashinje

1st Appellant

Machera Nyerere

2nd Appellant

Magasha Masisa

3rd Appellant

Kashinje Mwenda

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent proved his claim against the appellants to the required legal standard
  2. 2 Whether the lower courts erred in not ordering only the 3rd appellant to refund the sum of Tshs. 2,000,000/=

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent proved on the balance of probabilities that the appellants, acting together, forced him to pay Tshs. 2,000,000/=, and all are jointly liable to refund the amount; the concurrent findings of the lower courts were correct and not perverse or unjust.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Decision of both lower courts affirmed
  • Appellants to pay costs