19810630 TZHC Dar es Salaam
The appellant failed to establish his claim for costs due to inconsistencies in his evidence, lack of corroboration, and absence of receipts or supporting witnesses.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19810630 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Parties
- Appellant: Kassimu Likulu; Respondent: Mohamed Sefu Nyamino
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 30 June 1981
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Second Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Costs, Evidence, Appeals
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Kassimu Likulu
Appellant
Mohamed Sefu Nyamino
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant established his claim for costs according to law
- 2 Whether inconsistencies in evidence undermine the appellant's claim
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant failed to establish his claim for costs due to inconsistencies in his evidence, lack of corroboration, and absence of receipts or supporting witnesses.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- appellant to pay costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN tRE HI~lj_ COURT OF TA.NZ.ANIA AT D.All ES SALAAM CIVIL .APPEAL No. 47/80 (From the decision of the District Court of Utete at Rufiji in Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1979) KASSIMU LIKULU Versus MOHAMED SEFU NY.AMINO JUDG!'\1ENT Mvv.AKIBF.rE 1 J. The proceedings bef'ore Mkanga Primary Court - Rufiji District - related to a claim of costs by the appellant against the respondent - put variously at 202/= and 302/=, .Appellant's case was that the respondent had made unwarranted complaints against him to the Police and the concilliatory \ tribunal at Ikwiriri. · Following these allegations he was called to the police and the concilliatory tribunal to answer the allegations. 'lhe said allegations were eventually found to be false. But he had incurred expenses for the trips - hence the claim in court. ihe Primary Court found for the appellant. But the decision was reversed an appeal to the District Court - hence the 2nd appeal to ;his court. I had the opportunity to hear the parties on the 2nd appeal. · ·And having studied the proceedings before the lower courts, I remain of a settled view that the appellru1t had miserably failed to establish his claim according to law. According to the appellant, he had hired a boat for his trips to and from Ikwiriri police station o~ two occasions at the rate of 80/= per trip. There was no•independent evidence in support of this statement. On the contrary his young brother - one Athuma.ni Salum (PW.6) - who claimed to have accompanied appellant to the police station, testified that the two went on a bicycle which appellant had hired from someone at Shs. 70/= .. • •• /2 2 B-;asince tI:iey had spent a night at Ikwiriri the owner of the bicycle demanded another Shs. 70/= for the return journey - which appellant allegedly paid • .Appellant had no explanation for the inconcistency between his version and that of his own witness vm.o cl2,imed to be his young brother. He did not give any explanation-why he told the court -that he hired a boat at Shs. 80/= on two occasions while his witness said he hired a bicycle on one occasion only when l1o paid Shs. 140/e for tho trip to and from tho police station, He had beon challenged by this court to give an explanation for the inconsistoncy i No rocoipts for tho nlloged payments - if at all - wore also :eroduced. Nor did he call, as a witness, tho owner of the boat or bicycle __1 the abs once of receipts to confirm his story. Tho claim that ho hired a boat or bicycle at the rates indicated cannot in tho circumstances be accorded tho necessary weight, It was appello.nt 1 s contention also that he hired a bicycle for his trip to the: concilliatory tribun::il. The version of his young brother (PW.6) howcvor was that tho appellant hired a boat for two trips to tho concilliatory trinunal. Ho allegedly accompnni0d him to tho tribun_al o,nc1 that for tho first trip ho paid Shs. 30/=. Ho paid Shs. 30/= for tho 2nd trip. Hero again appollant was unc,blo to furnish an explanation for , inconsistency when challcmgod to do so boforo this court • .Appellant was romindod thd according to him he had spent a total of 8.hs. 202/= on hiru for tho allGgod trips to thu police station Md tho concillintory tribunal. Ho was romindod also that according to PW.6 appall-:". nt h,:1,d incurred a total of Shs. 302/=. Appollant W8.S yot again unable to roconcilo tho two sts,twmonts. Incidentally tho ovidonco on rocord shows -chat a.ppollant appoo.rod boforo a concilliatory tribunal on a complaint that ho had boon withholding rospondont 1 s wife and thc,t ho had boon adjudged at fauH .. soo testimony of PW,4 BcJ(ari Ramadhani. If this vw.s tho case, what would be the rationale bohind tho claim of co~ts'J - 3 - On tho other hand thoro is nothing in tho lotter p~port:i.ng to havo bocm written by Ibririri police which says that tho rospondont had made false complt:\in,cs, against the appollontJ . \ For tho ::i.hovo ronsons I ',rould dismiss tho appo2,l with costs., At Dor os Salaam this 30th . •, d_rt'~- Juno, 1981. .xrfwl ! ,,,.. ' / . .,/J/' ' -.... ___ ,., .' (M.J .Mi!AKIBETE) .ill!DGE MJM/SAS