19770809 TZHC Musoma

IN TW HTGH COURT OF TANZANIA J/ So (In the uistrict Registry) AT NWANZA (PC) CIVIL APPEAL NO0 292 OF 1975 (From the decision of the district court of MUSOMk At Musoma in Civil AppeEA. No. 40 of 1971 Before A.S. ?ILI MA,Es DISTRI CT MAGI S TRATE (Original Ngoreme Primary Court Civil Case No0 33 of 1972) MAGWEIGA NYIiKUBOKO 0 0 0 0 0 00 , 00 0 •• 00 0 00 0 OAPPELLANT versus MUHONIMJLRUNGUO • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ORESPONDENT JUDGMENT NFALILA, J. The present appellant was the respondent in the Primary Court at Ngoreme where he was sued by the respondent MUHONI SIO MARUNGU for the return of 17 cows and 15 goats which he had received as bride price when his sister in law the respondents mother re-married after the death of her first husband0 There were conflicting claims in the Primary Court in which the appellant admitted receiving 17 cows and 15 goats as bride price for the respondent's mother, but he said that he owed the respondent nothing because he gave him 12 cows, 1 cow was given to the respondent's mother, one other cow he used to refund the bri"e price of the r'spondent's sister and the remaining three died. As to the goats he said that all of them were used for expenses in the present litigation0 At the end of the hearing the Primary Court found that the appellant had given to the respondent only 12 cows and that one died 0 In the circumstances they ordered the appellant to refund 4 cows and 15 goats to his nephew the respondent Against this decision the respondent appealed to the district Court at Musoma and argued that he had received nothing from the appellant hence he should give him all the 17 cows and 15 goats as claimed 0 The district Court dismissed the respondent's appeal and held that on the evidence the Primary Court was right in ordering the refund of only 4 cows and 15 goats, and affirmed the judgment of the Primary Court to this effect 0 Against this decision the appellant now appealed arguing that the Primary Court was wrong in ordering him to refund 4 cows and 15 goats because he had parted with all the animals in the circumstances narrated in his evidence in the Primary Court0 The appellant is clearly wrong0 If he was dissatisfied with the judgment of the Primary Court :, he should have appealed to the district Court. If the respondent had lodged his a?peal before him, then he should have cross-appealed0 But he certainly cannot appeal direct to this Court from a decision of the Primary Court Fof these reasons this appeal is incompetent and it is dismissed. Therespondent did not appear, there will therefore be no order for costs in his favour0 1' I. MUSOMAO L. MFALILA 9TH AUGUST, 1977 JUDGE