19700612 TZHC Mwanza3
The respondent's actions in reporting the appellant were reasonable and not malicious; imprisonment resulted from judicial order, not respondent's conduct.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19700612 TZHC Mwanza3
- Parties
- Appellant: Marwa s/a Nyajviagaiwa; Respondent: Magibo s/a Rosaxa
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 12 June 1970
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- False Imprisonment, Malicious Prosecution
- 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
Marwa s/a Nyajviagaiwa
Appellant
Magibo s/a Rosaxa
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent is liable for false imprisonment of the appellant
Ratio Decidendi
The respondent's actions in reporting the appellant were reasonable and not malicious; imprisonment resulted from judicial order, not respondent's conduct.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed; judgment for respondent upheld
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COUT OP TANZANIA AT MANZA (pa) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9 OF 1970 (PRoLr THE DECISION OP THE DISTRICT COURT OF NORTH MAB.A AT TARIME IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 235 OP 1969). BefOre O.k. LWELENGERA, Esq., District Magistrate. MARWA s/a NYAJVIAGAIWA : : APPELLANT - Versus MAGIBO s/a ROSAXA : RESPONDENT J U D G E M E N T. N.S. MNZAVAS, Ag. J. The appellant was convicted of demanding property with menaces with intent to steal c/s 292 of the Penal Code arid.sentenced to 3 months imprisonment. The respondent was the complainant and chief prosecution witness befer-e The primary court. The appellant served a few days before his appeal to the district court was allowed and the conviction quashed. On his release from • prison he filed a suit against the respondent claiming damages for false imprisonment. The primary court gave judgement in his favour and awarded shs.500/= compensation against the respondent. On appeal by the respondent to the District Court the primary court judgement was set aside and judgement entered in his favour. The appeflant now appeals to this court. Looking at the evidence given at the primary court regarding the criminal case (MTANA Primary Court Criminal Case No.67/69) it is obvious that the respondent's action in reporting the appellant to the police and subsequently to the court was reasonable. I can see no evidence suggesting malice on the part of the respondent. 'S - The respondent cannot be held responsible for the imprisonment of the appellant because the term of imprisonment was ordered by the magistrate after he had been satisfied that the conviction was supported by the evidence although his decision was later reversed by the district court. In imj view a civil case for false imprisonment cannot, for the reasons I have given, succeed. The appeal is dismissed. 12th June, .1970 . Ag. JUDGE'. MVANZAI -?,-- - - --- -,'----- '. k