19941116 TZHC Dodoma1

..-::--.... . .,- ,.,,.. ij- ... "'..,; j ,\. IM r:IIlJa..III.GU .coullT DF ~JUNIA · i..T DODOMA ITC) CIVILiaicAFPEAL NO. 69 pF 19Q4 (Fron tho decision of the Dis.ttict -Ooui:t -c:£ 1'ondoa · at Kondoa.in Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1993, -~~inal. Civil Case No. 1 of 1993 of tho Prir.ia:ry Court of Kond.oa. at Goina) Il.ll.$3A1JI ],IQIWimDI l~Tr.., ,._ ... ,, • .,. o • • ,..,Al'Pl!llJ' AN~ Voisus l._TDJI'.A LUI-iUNUlJINit • •, • o., o o • ., • • • ot ... •• o .,._ o •• .RESPONJJENT JUDGMENT ,.. . . Mi'f.ALUSJJ.ITA . • J .. 'l1ho rospondont Ndira s/o Liounirnini succoss:f\llly SU.Cd tho ~~ 1Mt lla.s.s::..ni &harJ-Odj. UcL?.:i,,r~ at Gaioa, Pri.oo:ey , C ~ in .I<olld.oa. ni.stric.l-t.. Court in a clain of a piece of land of about two a.croa• Tho i'ii;ial oo'U1!-t hold .tb.o.t tho a;opcllwt had given tho land in disj_mto as a gif't to tho respondent on G/ 1/1990 and so ho cannot . go . back an his word. '1.'ho appclla.nt 1 s first o.ppccl to Kondoa Distr:ic:t Court was <lisuissod and hcnc.e this second appeal• '. It id a)?paront ft-on tho cowt roOOl'd 'hhat tho litigants in th~s on.so arc ncighbo~s. 'lho respondent 1i10 is a Mao.sa.i o-wns sonc cattle. In oro:-ly January 1990 tho rosvondent 1 s. cattle inv8dod tho a,ppollan•• s shaobc and destroyed sono crops. On D/ 1/1990 tho natto:c wa.s roforrod to · the villaco authori tics for a sottlonent., At that ne0ting t!lo a.ppcll&it stated th;,t L. :;o was paid Shs.4000/== a.s oonpcnsatior: for tho clostroyocl crops he 1:::s ready to surro:nclci· tho land in die1 utc to. the ro81)onclont so tl.,e,t ho can continue to 0Tazo his cattle th()j;'c. The respondent na:-cd. wncl paid Sl:s"!i-JOC/=• Th.a sattlcnont v:-ns rccluccd f.j_1 1-iri tine; c...,.'1.C.l 1rc:-.s acceptocl at tJ.:o tricJ. a.s Rxh. Pol• 'JJ:e s0ttlor.1ont seys in Kis11c]::.ili: •••/2 2 - II... • "Mini Mzoo Ho.ssani Nd.airi loo 3/1/1990 nit1ol.)atc.na na. Nzco Ndira Lir.runir.1Ul1i 1 sehoou ni.liyok:uwn nalioe. nineiaoho. la.ll.ioa, kwa hiyo nioor:ikabidJ,li onoo le. cl:-.lll'i noja na cinofidia Shs.4000/ =, olfu nno tu. Sabahu zilizonif9llYa ~..cha la.uir:1a,~ nifuco 10. Mzce Ndira inavurlJ&a shanlJa na. Dioca.. :cwt1. nakulJalia.no yotu. L.isi1m.vrili ·nclivyo tulivyola;u)ciie.na. 11 llo'WOVG't' a.t i:1:lc trial tho appellant claincd that tho above dooUilo.nt noa.nt that b(, had just · tc□j_)orarily lont tho land in dispute to tho rcspondc(Jt fol" just a year. Ile contended that 'ho had not criven out that lan l :porna.ncntly• on ny :r-,art I find that the appGllant is a stra.n801' to truth. Tho cl.oouocnt (li tcd above speaks for i tsolf• T'nc land in dispute ·was an outri:_):-.t e,'i.:f't to the ros:oonrlont. The al.)pell2..nt did not qualify his ctatonont in }!bih 1 'P.l that ho was allowing tho ros11ondcnt tc use that land for a year. In r:ry view the apJ;)ellant cannot bo allciwccl to oat his own words or blow hot and cold at tho SOilO tine. In the ovont, -fil10 aJ.)poal fails ancl it is disnissed. As tho J?al'tios cl'.r.1. not a.pl)ear, I hold that co.oh party w.i.11 boa:i:' its mm· costs of iib.is a:.opoal. order (',(}Corc:Lincly. · ~---.. ........... .:.:_~6 ~;