19910320 TZHC Mbeya
- Citation
- 19910320 TZHC Mbeya
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 20 March 1991
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 20 March 1991
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The appellant did not appeal his own conviction and fine for assault, so the District Magistrate was justified in awarding damages to the respondent for injuries sustained.
Court disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appellant to pay TSh 1,782.35 as compensation to the respondent or his estate
- Judgment to be read to the appellant and the administrator or heir of the respondent's estate at the Primary Court Lupata
- Primary Court to certify compliance to the District Court, which will certify to the High Court
- Judgment to be typed and forwarded to the trial court for compliance
02
Material facts
Parties
Mwakilyete Mwandembwe
AppellantKeta Mwaipaja
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Compensation Awarded: TSh 1,782.35
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the District Court was justified in awarding damages to the respondent after the appellant's conviction for assault
- 02
Whether the appellant's acquittal in a related criminal appeal affected the civil liability for damages
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant argued that the District Court erred in awarding damages as he was acquitted in the criminal appeal and challenged the findings of the District Court.
- Respondent
- The respondent maintained that the appellant did not appeal his conviction and fine in the Primary Court, and thus the District Magistrate was justified in awarding damages.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
District Court judgment and appellate review
Civil liability for damages can be maintained even if a related criminal conviction is quashed for another party, provided the appellant's own conviction stands unchallenged.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The appellant did not appeal his own conviction and fine for assault, so the District Magistrate was justified in awarding damages to the respondent for injuries sustained.
Obiter and limits
- The value of the awarded damages should be adjusted to reflect current currency exchange rates.
- The administrator or heir of the respondent's estate should be brought on record if the respondent is deceased.
Court disposition
appeal dismissed
- Appellant to pay TSh 1,782.35 as compensation to the respondent or his estate
- Judgment to be read to the appellant and the administrator or heir of the respondent's estate at the Primary Court Lupata
- Primary Court to certify compliance to the District Court, which will certify to the High Court
- Judgment to be typed and forwarded to the trial court for compliance
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 20 March 1991
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
TZHC
Judgment· 20 March 1991
- V IN THE HIGH C0UTVOFTNZMJIà V ATBTh: .V:V (PC) CIVIL APPEAL NO.26 0 ,1978 (Pxom tho decision of the District Court of Rungwe District at Tukuyu in Civil Appeal • N0165 f 1977 and Ipata Primary Court C1vi&',Cas No. 35 of 1974 V V Eofore:J.A. Lwaki12aba, Distri:ctLIagistrate) MWAKtLE Versus
KETA V V MET •• .. . ' V CH.V ' V . - • V . T40 Court Lupathisniiasod VVthe claim of Keta Mwaipeja V of 400 éhs. ho was claiming fro'Mwaki1yete Mwandembwe being cornpenPt. r)fl for a.n3urles motained. in an assult. Keta Mwaipaa appealed to the District Court ' i, Th)trict Court rersed the decision of the Ptimary Courtby,pering that Mwakilyote Mwandembwe should pay compensation of 150 'shS'. That was done on.the 27/3/78. In arriving at the assessnent.of 150shs.. learned District ragistrato considered the nature of assault, the extent of injutes, pain and suffertng experienced by Kpta MwaiVpa ja. Nwakilyo'te Mwandembwe is - appealing againsb the docision.of the District 'Côurt VV The facts of the cVasovveVr brieflyas fo1los. JKeta Mwaipaja. and a TANU Youth.•IaVgue an :cailed Andongoliie Mware10 had gono to seize the cattle of the father of dwamanda Mwandimbwo the father. of the: appellant. The seizure was in execution of a court order.. The appella±it and hi's, fatho' resisted. the attachment and in the process assaulted Iceta Mwaipa'.ja V:b hitting him with fists. The appellant and his father were subsequently charged at the Lupata Primary.. . . . 1?. • - V V V 2 - ~ R W Primary Court (vido CR. C. 35/74, tendered in court as exhibit). They were convicted and sentenced, to pay a fine of 50 shs, or 2 months iniprisonmentin default. 'Mwamanda Mwand.imbwe appealed to the District'
Cour.t Tkuyu, His conviction was quashed and sentence set aside. (Vid.e (PC)CR APPEAL 9/75 of Tukuy'u District). T1ro 'is no evidence thaMwaki.uyete Ivlwand.embwe the dppellant in this case appealed against the conviction and fine imposed by the Primazy Court. In this appeal he oha1l6nge thf.ind.ngs of the b i s tril d t Court on Waeaôquitted bythe flistrioOourt. But I 2 have seon the certified, copy óf u1ginent of the District Court in R ,pp 9/75 judnent La in respect of19w a mbih(I ti Mwandmbwe alone, There is 110 allegation or ovidence that there was a sëperte appeal by thea appellant Mwakilyete IIwandembwe. That being the ease: the )earne flietrict Magistrate' was jlAst±fiedto award d.niage a as he did. " "•'- - 1978 one doller was ab'out 17 Thnaniai. she, Now 1. dollr kbat 202 she. Thu S meansthat the award. of 150 slis. 'damages it ra ti l tetms in now oqu.Lvalent to x 202 she 0 1,78/3. In view o the above qbsorvationth6 appeal isdiniissedwjth costs btthoappol1ant will now pay she.1,782/35. Furthermore itis n oted7 tht the responde nt is reportad tha& a far bck 'as 8/11/86 'and no'dministrator of his 'Estate tas been brought o11 'the record. Judent in this ose will be forwarded to the Pr1ary CoiU't Lupata and the. P. C. M. I&tpata should summon the appellant and ta Administrator of the 19state of the respondent or his heir, and. have the jud.gmentread over to thCrn, The P. C. Lafter d-oing En" -' certify to thp. District Court which in turn shoul& certify to this court,. •-.. L.J.R.CHUA
JUDGE Judgment delivored. in Oourt this 20th day of 11Iamh, 1991. L 3, R. CHtJA
JUDGE ORDER: Judgment to be typed and copies thereof to be forwar'ded to Primary 0 the tria1court for compliance with the order in the judgme±t. 0/ . L. J. R. CHUA ('fl. JUDGE ..,,.,. AMBEY •0 2/3/91 Qifrima. . A
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.