19961108 TZHC Dar es Salaam
The application is dismissed because the dispute is purely factual, with no legal issue involved to warrant leave to appeal.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19961108 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Parties
- Appellant: Mahia Mahimbo & 3 others; Respondent: Sophia John Mahimbo
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 8 November 1996
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Leave to Appeal / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal to Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Inheritance, Recovery of Property
- 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
Mahia Mahimbo & 3 others
Appellant
Sophia John Mahimbo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal to Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there is a legal issue warranting leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The application is dismissed because the dispute is purely factual, with no legal issue involved to warrant leave to appeal.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- application dismissed with costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
' .' /,l(j/lM) a . IN 'l'}L,; HIGH COURT ·oF TJu\i:~ANIA (DAR l~S SAL!-\.,:iJ'I DLSTHICI' R_;i;GIS'rRY) MAHIA MAHIMBO f', 3 orrI:i~RS C O O O O O .o O· i, 0 0 O O O Cl O O O O • APP~LLANTS V3RSUS SOPHI!-\. JOHN MAHIMBO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q O O O O O O O .o O O O O O O 0 RESPONDENT RULING MSUMI 1 J.: This is an application for le;::,ve to appeal to Court of Appeal against the decision of this Ccurt'. The matter originated from the primary court where respondent sued the applicants for recovery of eleven heads 0£' cattla whicl~'. she claimed 1;o have inherited from her father. After the trial court had dismissed the suit, respondent successfullyap~eq.ledto the District Court. Disatisfied with the judgment of the District Court, applicants appealed to this court and Maina J., dismissed the appeal. '.i.1hey are now praying for leave to appeal to the eourt of Appeal. Applicants and respondent are.cousins. Throughout the proceeding&, the- issue in dispute is whether the eleven heads of cattle were clall property or belonged exclusively to the father of the respondent. Both the first appellate District Court and this court held that they were property of the father of raspondent hence upheld her claim over them. This finding is wholy based on the evidence on record that all the time the said heads of cattle were in possession of respondent's father who had before his de a.th h,mded them to the respondent. Ap_plicants forcibly took them from her aft2r th2 death of the said fath°'er. It is thus clear that· this findin.r; is basc;d on facts. There is no .... - c:. ' legal issue involved. This.application is therefore dismissed with costs. __ ·: }, ..;.:- I-Io .\ o. }iL~U f:11 i '·.~.(_\ 8/11/96 2nd Applicant: Present Respondent: Present.