19940811 TZHC Mtwara
The evidence overwhelmingly favored the respondent, and the appellant's claim was not supported by the weight of evidence. There was no contentious legal point warranting interference with the first appellate court's decision.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19940811 TZHC Mtwara
- Parties
- Appellant: MOHAMED MKOMI CHIRUKU; Respondent: ALLY MKOMI CHIRUKU
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 11 August 1994
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Second Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Land Dispute, Appeal Procedure
- 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
MOHAMED MKOMI CHIRUKU
Appellant
ALLY MKOMI CHIRUKU
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the first appellate court erred in allowing the appeal regarding occupation of the parcel of land
- 2 Whether the appellant's claim over the disputed land was supported by evidence
Ratio Decidendi
The evidence overwhelmingly favored the respondent, and the appellant's claim was not supported by the weight of evidence. There was no contentious legal point warranting interference with the first appellate court's decision.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs
- Parties to be summoned by the District Court to be informed of the decision
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
... PC CIVI1 APPEAL HO 3 Oi' 1994 UTI:WALA DISTIUCT COURT CIVIL APPEAL no. 19/1953 ORIGIHAL t'IIHAMBtl'fil PRIM,lRY COURT CIVIL CASE: NO 14 OF 1992 MOH.4J,1lIO MKOMI ClllllUKU - - - - APPELLANT versus ALLY I,5:KOMI CIIDWKU "'." - - - RESPONDENT JUD MEliT This JJ1atter is before this court on second appeal. The respondent, ALI MKOMI CHIRUKE 1 had unsuoeessfully bl'OU@lt his aotion agains!fhis br::;ther~ MOHAf,;;IDI MKOMI CH.IHtJKITI, challenging his occupation of a paroelL,land. 0-.a appeal to the district court of ifewala",jlldgment was entered in favour. of the respondent•'·. It is against that. decision that the matter is now before this court. The first appellate court allo~d the apl)Gal primarily-on the ground that th~ evidence on :reconl is overwhelmingly _against the apl)Elllant. The court also foW'ld. and held that tho appellant's olaim over the land in disp.1te was quite hazy,let alone being not supported by the l48ight of' evidenoe. This being the second appeal am. in ~he a1?senoe of anT contentious legal point,· with ·respect to. the appellant, I am unSble to finl basis to int!2lrfGre with the decision of the first appellate oourt. If, I may further add the findings of the trial court were not based on the evidence.a In conclusion,·this apP3al must fail. It is accordingly dismis.:;od with costs ·to this ·court am those beio~~ J • .r., Mkwawa. . .-··· _..,..;;, , --·. Judge. 11/8/94 ·lJ~ ..;;urt:• The parties to be summonad by the District court to be infq:rsood of the decision of t~ appea.J.. The judgment to be oertified to the District court, lfowala • . _)>>~- _,.... / {.--· J.J. MKWAWA. JUDGrn 11/~/~-