19761025 TZHC Mwanza
Appellant is civilly liable to refund the money received for safe keeping, regardless of criminal conviction and sentence served.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19761025 TZHC Mwanza
- Parties
- Appellant: Matililej Titatungoa; Respondent: Banci Mne Luhandji Jioni
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 25 October 1976
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Second Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Money Held for Safe Keeping, Civil Liability Versus Criminal Liability
- 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
Matililej Titatungoa
Appellant
Banci Mne Luhandji Jioni
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Is the appellant liable to refund money given for safe keeping despite having served a criminal sentence?
- 2 Can the appellant raise a new defence not presented in lower courts?
Ratio Decidendi
Appellant is civilly liable to refund the money received for safe keeping, regardless of criminal conviction and sentence served.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appellant to pay costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
-IITHE 1J Gt t4- -(, X, IJOURIP OF i!ZAi'IA AT MWANZA (rc:.) CIVIL AFFAL 70.49 OF 1975 (From the decision of the District Court of hanza at iJwanzs. in Civil ApDeal lo.9 of 1974- -Before A.IO Lutatiaisiowa, Esq., 3enior Magistrate) MATTiIL.EJ TITATUNG0A . . . . . . . . . . . . AP2ELLAIIT versus BAIICi. i.1\E LJ\hJjiJJ Ji1iOiN1YI1--'1T J U B C B II B N T MFALILA, J. This. is a second appeal. The first to the District Couib at Mwanza was unsuccessful. Originally the respondent sued the appellant claimii.g the return to her of shs.860/= which she had earlier given him for safe keeping in his capacity as secre:tary of the local society. Althou.°h the appellant is denying it now, he admitted in the Primary Court that the respondent was one of the pcople who had given him money for safe iceeping at the society. He said that this money was later lost. At its meeting the society ordered that the appellan -b should refund all this money to the various people who had taken their money to him. . When he failed to do this, he was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to a termof imprisonment wJ:iich he fully served. In these circumstances, the appellant told the Primary Court he was no longer liable to make these refunds and that the respondent is the only one who loged this claim. This argment was rejected in the Primary Court. which allowed the respondent's claim as filed. The appellant unsuccessfully appealed to the District Court. - In the present aspe he is now d.isputin the allcaation that the respondent avo him some mOrIcy for safe keepinq. ho is SE 1 f tjit to mover r000:ivecL such moncy from the respondent or :,:rono at all. The appellant cannot be allowed to put up a fresh defence wriich was not before the lower courts0 In both the lower courts his case proceeded on the basis that he was absolved of all resions1b1l1Gy by hip, imprisonmcn. This is certainly not correct0 criminal responsibility ::: quito distinct from civil lialii*ity. There is evidonce that the appellant received the various sums from various people ircluding the roe pondnt, that those sums of money werq lost in circpmstances which make the appellant personally. rusponsitle. I-ia is therefore liable to return the sum of money no received. from the appellant. In the result I apree with the decisions of the - Primar y Cur tand the District Court and dismiss this appeal with costs. _0• • . •(1 I i7ji (- •S - / - 2!5 .i QAQ O'D 2 l9t6 L iJAL ILA JnGE \ 4•,\ ,i•_ 4 e $ -