19940628 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Citation
- 19940628 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 28 June 1994
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appellate Judgment
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 28 June 1994
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appellate Judgment
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The respondent's claim was based on a fraudulent transaction, as the evidence showed the land was not sold but hired, and the written document was obtained under false pretenses. Therefore, the claim should have been dismissed, and the appeal is allowed.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed with costs here and in the courts below.
Orders
- District Magistrate to furnish a copy of the judgment to each party.
02
Material facts
Parties
Nassoro Mgella
AppellantUnnamed Respondent
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Amount Paid by Respondent to Jalala: TZS 1,500
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal / Appellate Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the respondent had a valid cause of action against the appellant
- 02
Whether the transaction between the respondent and Jalala constituted a sale or mere hiring of land
- 03
Whether the respondent's claim was based on a fraudulent enterprise
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant argued that the respondent had no valid cause of action, as the land was not sold to the respondent but merely hired, and that the respondent's claim was based on a fraudulent document.
- Respondent
- The respondent claimed to have purchased the land from Jalala and relied on a written document as evidence of the sale.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
General legal principle, as referenced in the judgment
A claim based on a fraudulent transaction cannot be sustained in law.
- 02
Magistrates Court Act, 1984, section 35
Appeals may be determined in the absence of parties if they fail to appear on successive dates, pursuant to the proviso to section 35 of the Magistrates Court Act, 1984.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The respondent's claim was based on a fraudulent transaction, as the evidence showed the land was not sold but hired, and the written document was obtained under false pretenses. Therefore, the claim should have been dismissed, and the appeal is allowed.
Obiter and limits
- The evidence against the respondent is overwhelming.
- The appeal was determined in the absence of the parties due to their non-appearance on successive dates.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed with costs here and in the courts below.
- District Magistrate to furnish a copy of the judgment to each party.
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 28 June 1994
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· 28 June 1994
;,. · DJ ,TEE TI1GH COURT OF TJJIZlJi!I.A mn@ES~ PC. CIVIL t.PPl:JJio IW. 23 OF 199 3 NhSS0R0 :uJDlvI MGE.ll. • c • • • • o • . . . . . . o o • • • • • • • ... u l'LA:[11l.1IFF VfillSU'S MlJ]llrpl) ~111-ilillII.luq p e •• " • ! • , ••• : I t • • , 0 • , • • 0 • ' 0 • • e. .DEFEIID~n' Aooor According to the facts as 0stablishod by tho trial P.L-inary Court, the respondent in 19131 nas givon a :pieoo of land by one J"alala on which . to cultivate crops, 'lhe said Jalala renained tha ovmer of that land during · its user by tho :respondent. Rassani Issa (:PW.2) was a witnoss to that transaction. F"rie2 did testify that fivo yea.rs later cTe.lala. olaimed back his shaP.ba whioh he subse_quently sold to Ua.ssoro Mgella.,. th.a ~pell ant •. ,Ahd Chari Ali Mh2,nd.o (l?Wc16),: tho local . village Clla.innan testified how ' ' he wi tnassod. tb.o o.1.Jpollantbby tho suit parcel of land from the said J"alalaJ That thoy visitod tho l~cus in quo soon before tho sale, and that a. written agroeilent was ·oxocutod• That agree□ent wes tendered as exhibit during the trial. The cv.i.cl.01100 of tho appellant 0011firus what FW.6 told tho court. 1n fact, as raattor stt:'.lld. 1'·tho suit ought to have boon dismissed for f'a.ilure to disoloso o. oa.uso of action a~l'!.i11st :tho dofon:la.nt/appolla.nt. I have f0Ul:1d out elso that tho respo11dont basod his oaso on a :f'ranlulent enterprise. 'l!rls.
-is 1'0waloc1 by Hassan Issc>. (PU.2) who testifiod ·L:, that tho res:p01ld,ont paid J'aln.la S1s. 1,500/... in return for hi-rill£; the latter's·. shaJ11ba. It is il.1 tho Gvidenoc of PW,2 -that shortly attor that pa30ont the :,·:·:.: respondent wont baok to PW,2 with a. wri ttcn doouraont tho :purposo of which PW,2 did. not know, PW,2 woniored why tho respondent haA prepared that document sinco tho· piooo of land had _not beon sold to ~ Tho rospohdont oalJned their fon:rs, Ol1d sinco this witness l:-8 illitoraa.to, was persuaded to sign a docur:10.nt tho oontants of which ho did not kn~ ';&o respondent used that document to his; maximum advantage, olaiining that it avidonoe salo of the pioco of land to lli.l:n. - 2 ».-om tho ::ibovo cvidonco tho :.>riL1ary Court was entitled t-:> dismiss tho claim. 'Jhe respond ant sucoc = Jfull:T a];>:pcrlccl to tho District Court. ~o appellant now 110nd.ers whore · -he District court found evidence upon which it oould atit a.aide tll J deoisio11 of tho trial Primary Court. I also share tho alttioty of tho .1ppoll0l1t 1 i' or tho ovidonco a.:-.:-::'.:-ist tha .respondent is ovorwhoolming. let me say finally that th is appoal haa boen doto:nnined in tho absence of tho paxtios. This a.Goision we..s roa.ahod. attar tho aJ?Pollant could not be avnil[',blo on .two sucoossive dates. It is in those oiroumstanoos that, in omar to dotermino tho appoal QJ;pedioiously,; the proviso to section 35 of the iia.gist~atos Court .&>t, 1984 had to be resorted to. .For the roe.sons that I havo. Biven.. tho aJ;>peal is a.lowed witl:. costs hare a.nd in tho two ourts below. Tho 1.Xf.striot Magistra.to shell furnish a oopy of this judg:nent to ea.ch of tho parties.: Delivorod. · ~'.( . . :S• M•. Mt..CKJJ.UA .J]j)_gE 20/6/J.994 Parties, B:,sont1
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.