19920429 TZHC Dar es Salaam

_fH T!:iE I:IIGIT COTJRT 0::1 TA.E~AHIA AT Df~R ES SAL:'JuI (Pd) crn1 APfZAL IJO .c OP 19G6 APPELL..-\1-lT '.ilAJiJ;U NWINYIIttUA • a o o o o e o co~• o o • o o • o, • o o o o o o·e o, RESPOIIDI:1:1T RULING The char.:ibcr sl.lf.1lJons by AT.iTG°l;ifl.liI KILDBLTI-TGU is for the lollowing orders a (a) cU1 ex-tension of tine to file a lfotice of Appeal out of tirn, (b) an exter2si 0:1 of tit1e to arply :for leave to appeal to the Oou:rt of Appeal of Tanza:lia o,.r!'i of tii:1e. and / ( c) costs of the applica tiono 'l1he application is supported by an af'fic.l.avi t that had been swcn1 on 4th NO"irenber, 19D7 by the then coi.msel for the applicant 1 r1.'~LIUGL1'1IU GODFTu!.--Y RL"'rASHJ:DIRWA RU.i:/JJ:UJ,::'J.A. Hr. SeLJg"alawe, t!2<: learned advocate for the applicant did aot !1av0 a.i:iythinc uo:rc to add to tlla rafarred affidavit. T!iis case ori3'inated froo the P:cL:1azy Court. The apr,ea::.. to this court was thus a second appeal. AD wa.s tho case hera, tl:e L2·~cl1ded appeal to the Courto of Appeal ~ be on a poin-~ of i2.w. 1-hzavas, J .Ko (as he then was) had in his jUJiG'rnnt stated, inter alia: 11 :r.'ror.i Ji;b.e evidence tendered 1Jcfo:;.'o t.11e court of first instance a::.d. t.'.'.e sketch l:la.1) draw.1 ·:Jy tl20" pril::a:ry com·t af·i;er visi ti21j ·i;Iie la:1d in disp:..1.·;;c, i·t was aq)ly clea:r- t).1at t!-:.o disputed i>icco 0:? la:.1d 1)clon0 od to tl:c appclla::.t. IIad tLo local villar_;o co[rit·l;co Dade invcstigatio1"1s befcre allocati::c; t~_:e land to tho ·- 2 respondent/defendant it would no donbt have found tha.,li' t):i.o disputed land be lon,-:;-cd to the appellant who had inb.eri tod it fror.1 his fa·bller; and would not ha~e allocated it ·to ·i;he responderit/ defc11cla11t. · lw oost of tl:e cv;i.dcrtce was ~msed _on tiattc;rs of fact aml as tl..e pric:iar,y oour'.; r.10.Ciotrato a..11d the tl>t<> assessors who sat with ltlr.1 were tt1a.nincus that the appellant/plai.:.1tiff 1a wi tnosscs 1.,te:re nore credible than thooe of the :rospo11do:1.,a/defendant; the learned. distti.c.t ~istrate e,,r~d in difforinG" with the fi11din:.1 of tl:c court oi' first instance . ' based as it was· on t~10 credi1)ili•~y of tb.e witness." The case t!,.en was on second ap1)oal st.atod to have been dctei-oi11ed on orodiuili-'Gy of wi tne3ses. It cru.1 not be forwa:rcled to ·i;J..:.e Court of Appeaj. Ql1 a. third appeal -'.;a dctcroino issues of :fact. Ho point of law to be dcterr.:ined by -~lw Oourt of Appeal has bocu canvassed and I franl;:ly sec none Jclw:i; cvu:ld 'oo canvassed-. Ho certification of a point of law can -!;J.:...:S be ~ - : .. by this cc.uit,. To Grant .the applica.tio11 is to waste t'..:;.is and Cour'c of Appeal 1s tir.104 l1his oourt car1..a-t. be a l)tir-1;.y · to tJ.:n:~. 1 Accordin0 1y the applica:tion is disraissed with oeota. Yahya JUWE. • , I 29/4/92 Coran: Rubana, J'. For tµe Appcllan-1; jfor the Ilcspondent CC O Or.Jary • Ru.line delivered. 29/4/92