19960920 TZHC Dodoma
The Primary Court's award of shs 2,000/= was fair and reasonable compensation for the destruction of crops, and the District Court erred in reducing it to zero; the appeal is allowed and the Primary Court's decision is restored.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19960920 TZHC Dodoma
- Parties
- Appellant: Mwanaisha d/o Manahani; Respondent: Jojulu Tiassani Mohamed
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 20 September 1996
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Compensation for Crop Destruction, Assessment of Damages, Appeals Process
- 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
Mwanaisha d/o Manahani
Appellant
Jojulu Tiassani Mohamed
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant was entitled to higher compensation for destruction of crops by respondent's cattle
- 2 Whether the District Court erred in overturning the Primary Court's award
Ratio Decidendi
The Primary Court's award of shs 2,000/= was fair and reasonable compensation for the destruction of crops, and the District Court erred in reducing it to zero; the appeal is allowed and the Primary Court's decision is restored.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- Decision of the Primary Court restored
- Decision of the District Court quashed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
AT 7')'.)l)JMA ~ CIVU. APPEAL N0.~9l. OF 1995 (~m the ieoision• of the 1):istri~ . ~ - 4£ I'-tt·-l.~ at. Kon-tc.,, .iu. l;µ,1!. Appeal NO~ 100 of 1994£ Orieinal Civil. fuse NO. 46 of 1994 · Jangal.o P..c,J MW.ANAIS:"U¼. i.UU\lf.;).1EANI , • t • • • •••• •itI"::>PELLii.NT WJBUS J .U 1) GM E N T ' ·• M -- ...J1W4¥1,ANYA,. ~ lhis is an appeal, (fror.i KM1oa l).i.5~ C ~ ~h~e ~ app~~ Mwanaisha ri/Q; ~-~,J,ost tc. :J9.J.Uu TiassGni Moham~ ':cha 4'2S~ stirc::ted. at JangalQ }?rimary Oo-u.rt on case of the 1.estru.ct.i.Qn o! crops by ,v-::ri.t]_:r., 1.\ ~ase· which was file,i by Mwanaisha d/a 11ana1hani where she p ~ lo.sta She ha-i claime~ shs '4JOOO/• but was awar-'1~1 shs 2,000/s only, At the District eaijtj she lost completely·~,. hence this appeal~ She intisted that shs 41 000/• was fair but the trial eourt awar1ea her shs 2,000/~ onlJ 1 So she appeale1 to the ~Iigl1 Court. The ,1parties in this Qa.se are neighbourfJ Mi have a1.jaoent shambas. 'Ihe bone,Qf·•ontention was 'that the cattle of responient ~never ate the crops of the appellant. but only passe1 there aceii~ntly when he was ple1wghing his sharaba 1 :ie lmow that oxen/bulls 1estroy crops when 1 =' they trea~ 01 plants k.n1 also 1est:roy the sisal on the hc1ge 1 Th~t is when twiat,nG·at the 1orner 1 'lbe parties were areuinG ol\ a 1ifferent plk.e, We lmow th~t ~ttle .:iestroy orops1 espGGi2,lly you.vi~·:: _:?hn.t~ when hoote t:read on thei~ I think !he compensation of shs 2,00'J,/.. -!:!,:::-.:: '.:as awarie-1 by the PrirJc:xy Court was faire T'a.e nistrict Court st:~tei t:1.-:-..t the co;:ipensation of shs 2 1 000/= was too high when even tho ~},;21111.1 ai1.1Dba waa not called to eval-u.·?.te the extent of the destruction of crops. I iont agree, not ev0~ such a "ase a Tiwana Sha.':lba has tci '.)e · e-...:.1:..~u. '1.1hc appen.l is allowed., 2 ·lJ.b~ ·'laeision o;£ tllsa Prio·1J'.'Y Court is restore1.. The 1.ectsion of the Uistrict Court is q:u.p..,shed. The appeal is allowed with costs. Orde:t: a.ocociingly. I J .L • 11\·!JiLUS.ANYA J"'i.Jl)}E 20/9/1996 J .1. !IJ}JALUSi'.NYA JU'l)GE 20/9/1996 I oerti~t.h~t. this. i.s e. true ,'3ll'1 correct copy of <bile Orip,i!lA). Ju1graent. · <..( i ,, ·:..~ s.n. tfu&h&wA nISTi.UCT :;®GISTilfu."1 /