19700612 TZHC Mwanza
The district magistrate misdirected himself by disregarding consistent evidence accepted by the trial court; the primary court's decision was proper and fully supported by the evidence.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19700612 TZHC Mwanza
- Parties
- Appellant: Makorere Makina; Respondent: K. Rasio Muiko
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 12 June 1970
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Loan of Movable Property, Appeals, Evidence Assessment
- 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
Makorere Makina
Appellant
K. Rasio Muiko
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant loaned three heads of cattle to the respondent
- 2 Whether the district court erred in partially allowing the appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The district magistrate misdirected himself by disregarding consistent evidence accepted by the trial court; the primary court's decision was proper and fully supported by the evidence.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- Judgment of the district court set aside
- Decision of the primary court restored
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
11 • t.c- J:giv : oil , 1z:I; AT WANZA, (pc) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12 OF 1970 (From the decion of the District Court of North Mara at Tarime in Civil Appeal No, 246 of 1969) Before C.A. Lwelengera, District Magistrate and P.C. Civil Case No, 155 of 1 969. IVIAKORERE MAKINA . oa • • a • o o a coo...,. • • o • • c • a • . , . . .......... . . APPELLSANT Versus K.dRASIO MUI'IKO °, ao.a.00,o.., 0*0*0 .........toe,,,... ao..o ...ESPONDENT. JUDGMENT. MNZAVAS, Ag, J. In this case the appellant successfully sued the respondent for return of 3 heads of cattle he loaned to him. The respondent appealled to the district court which partly allowed the appeal. The appellant was dissatisfied with this order hence the present appeal to this court. The appellant produced three witnesses in the primary court who gave evidence to the effect that they witnessed the passing of three heads of cattle from the appellant to the respondent. They all said that the heads of cattle were loaned to the respondent. This evidence was accepted by the magistrate as well as the two assessors who sat with him. The respondent brought no witness other than his wife who denied the claim by the appellant. In his judgment the learned district magistrate disallowed the claim of two heads of cattle and gave judgment in favour of the appellant for one head of cattle only saying that there was doubt as to whether the other two heads of cattle were in fact loaned to the respondent. As I have mentioned three witnesses gave evidence supporting appellant's claim. Their testimony was accepted by both the magistrate and the assessors as truthful. This being the position it is clear that the district magistrate totally misdirected himself. A court of appeal cannot substitute its own opinion of the facts for that of the trial court where it is consistent with the evidence. The decision of the primary court was proper and sound and fully supported by the evidence. The judgment of the district court is set aside and the decision of the primary court is hereby restored. The appellant is to have his costs. IV1WANZA. (N . 1 2. 6 .7 0 . Ag, JUDGE. - ••_.___._._ - •• -. - -- - .• 0 - - 0 •