19801024 TZHC Musoma

p IN THE HIGH COURT OP TANZANIA C) .T MUSOMt APPELLE JURISDICTION (pc) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 50 OF 1979 (Prom the decision of the District Court of Serengeti at Mugumu in Civil Appeal No 18 of 1977 - Before: R. I. I&ikume, Esq', District Magistrate and Oiginal Ikizu Primary Court Civil Case No 200 of 197g. MTATIRO MWITA ;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .A.PPELLà.NT VERSUS ITOGORO LiiITA :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::; RESPO1DENT .I.'.I.i. J U D G E M E N T MFALILà J.: - In the Primary Court at Ikizu the respondent sued the appellant claiming two oxen or their value. He said that he had given these ox to the appellant so that he could sell them on his behalf at a vi11ag cattle auction for Shs, 600/= each, He added that after selling thee oxen the appellant refused to hand to him the pro fleeds saying that he knew nothing about the alleged transaction. He called a witness who supported his allegations. The appellant on the other hand denied these allegations. He denied being given any cattle by the respondent for sale on his beha at the village cattle auction. He said that what he knows is that tLc... was an outstanding dispute between him and the respondent on lost skt and that this dispute must have been the basis of the respondent's fai... claims against him. The Primary Court dismissed the respondent's suit holding that t was no credible evidence to' support his claims against the appellant What influenced the Primary Court was a letter from the respondent's L... 1ader refuting 11W92 1 s evidence that he had issued a permit to the respondent allowing 1.iim to drive his cattle into another District therefore found both the respondent and his witness to have been lying. However when the respondent appealed to the District Court, District Magistrate allowed his appeal and reversed the Primary Cour , decision holding that the respondent's evidence was more weighty tha: that of the appellant. This appeal is against that decision, In the trial Court the respondent claimed to have given two 0:; to the appellant for the latter to sell them on his behalf He proc a witness to back up his claim, But I think the Primary Court gave very good reasons for rejecting and dismissing his case s the chief being that the appellant could not have moved these animals without a written permit of some sort from some authority. This was lackin the respondent claiming that it was lost, but the man from whom he claimed to have got the permit denied issuing it. I think in these circumstances, the Primary Court was entitled to find as they did that the respondent had failed to establish his claim against the appellant. The decision of the District Court is not supported by ther evidence on record. -. - 2 - For these reasons I allow this appeal, the judgement and orders of the District Court are set aside and those of the Primary Court restored The appellant will have the costs of this appeal. Wok L. L'IF4IL JUDGE I 4 \