said mbasi another vs hiyana ally 1988 tzhc 46 23 february 1988

IN Trit. H I G H C C U k T OF T^i\iZ*'\'~>. ;-vT M T u n R*. r'C. C I V I L ^ir’PE.vL HO. 5 OF 1976 GKIGlH/vL fttWK.-w D I S T R I C T C G U k T <-vT MTtw^KA MI SC. C I V I L C a U s l iviOo 3 OF 1975 lo 5 A C U MBAS'I (Deceased) o o o o o o o o o e o o c . t L I j Ij A I i X w 2 0 OrtAKI 5 A L U M Ve rs us HIY^IA ooooo.oooooeooooooo KLSPONDENT JUDGvlbilT K^ZIMOTO, Jo I n Civ il C a s e No. 3 of 1975 the H t w a r a D i s t r i c t C o u r t declared that the r e s p o n d e n t to be the o w n e r of h o u s e s on pl o t No. 1 4 Eio ck ’.Ai-v' ChiJcongola area; pl ot No. 2a Bazaar S t r e e t at M i k i n d a n i ana sh am bas s it ua ted at ;.weru, M a J ~ ‘iqwa and Nar -uruwe<> Being aissatisfiea -:ie a p p e l l a n t is a p p e a l i n g to this court® This c a s e ha s a c h e q u e r e d h i s t o r y and I f e a r to say that after p e n d i n g in the c o u r t r e c o r d s fo r o v e r 13 years, whatever be the o u t c o m e to the parties, the saying that " j u s t i c e in sweete st w h e n -it is f r e s h e s t ” d o e s not a pp l y to this case,, It all s t a r te d w i t h ism a i l G u l a ma li ® He married the respondent,, During their married life Gulamali and r e s p o n d e n t a c q u i r e d some p r o p e r t i e s m o v a b l e and inim-vableo ism a i l Gulamali died and on e Sa i d M bas i was d u l y a p p o i n t e d the a d m i n i s t r a t o r of the e s t a t e of ismail Gulamali» He c l a i m e d that the p r o p e r t i e s l i s t e d above b e l o n g e d to the d e c e a s e d ism ai l Gulamali0 The r e s p o n d e n t res is t e d and hen c e the p r o c e e d i n g s refer red to above, in those p r o c e e d i n g s O mari S a l u m u was c a l l e d as p l a i n t i f f w i t n e s s No«2a W h e n the ca se c ame f or h e a r i n g of appeal additional, e v i d e n c e was o r d e r e d to be r e c o r d e d and wis taicen a c c o r d i n g l y ® Nothing event fu l h appenedc Sa id Mb a s i d ..-jd and it was o r d e r e d that a n o t h e r a d m i n i s t r a t o r to t h e estate of is mai l Gulaic.ali be ap pointed* This was d o n e on 8 „ 9 , 8 7 ari Omari Salum, no w the appellant, has t ake n the h e l m era is v i g o r o u s l y f o l l o w i n g th e f o o t s t e p s of Sa i d i H ba si and he appears to h a v e adopted the g r o und s of appeal fi led b y his p r e d e c e s s o r . T he re were two main, g ro unds of appeal* Th e f irst was that tne a p p e l l a n t was not given the o p p o r t u n i t y to adduce d o c u m e n t a r y evidence, which he had, at h o m e and that he did not r e m e m b e r to b ri ng with him.. Th e a l l e g a t i o n t h a t v t h e a p p ell an t was noc g i v e n an o p p o r t u n i t y to t e n d e r d o c u m e n t a r y e v i d e n c e c a n h a r d l y be true- It is a false all eg at io n. The r ec or d shows that Saidi tfbasi gcive e v i d e n c e on 18.12.75. The o n l y d o c u m e n t he m e n t i o n e d that h e fo rgo t at ho me was the or d e r a p p o i n t i n g h im the a d m i n i s t r a t o r of the d e c e a s e d estate. What is c l e a r is that the c a s e was a d j o u r n e d to 1 9 0 1 2 075 to e na b l e hi m to produce, and I quote, "all re l e v a n t d o c u m e n t s he c l a i m e d " and I n ot e with g r a t i f i c a t i o n that on 1 9 . 1 2 . 7 5 h e p r o d u c e d the or der a p p o i n t i n g h i m a d m i n i s t r a t o r as e xhibit "pa" and the l is t of this al leged to i n c l u d e the p r o p e r t y of the d e c e a s e d ismail Gulam ali o N e v e r t h e l e s s my l ea rne d b r o t h e r K i m i c h a J c (as h _ then was) or de r e d a d d it io nal e vi de n c e to be t ak e n and the a p p e l l a n t te n d e r e d h o u s e rent re cei p t s for 1969, 1970, 1971, copies of de c e a s e d b a l a n c e sheet f o r 1968, letter from M anager NBC d t wara dated 23 .8 .7 2 and de m a n d n o t i c e f or land rent for 1 970 as ex h i b i t s n,B,C, and Do re sp ec t i v e l y . I n o w c o n s i d e r this addit io nal evidence. Lxhibi Al and ^2, C and D deal wi th h ou s e s on pl o t Mos. 14 and 2. T he y are in the name of the d e c e a s e d ismail Gulam al i. The r e s p o n d e n t has ten de re d Exh. Dl and d 2 in r e s p e c t of the two h o u s es. X have pe r u s e d the re cor d to see the n a t u r e of the e x h i b i t s Dl and D2 but u n f o r t u n a t e l y they h av e be e n re tu rn ed to r e s p on de nt. In i is judgment, however learned trial m a g i s t r a t e had this to say as r ega rd s the houses: O O O Q/ 3 "rvs to the ho us e at p l o t n o o 1 4 31ock sit ua te d at C h i k o n g o l a the d e f e n d a n t p r o d u c e d a line of documents to p rov e that tne h o u s e was h ers® T h e s e we re t e n d e r e d and a c c e p t e d by the c o u r t as Lxk* D„l« Th e r e is a l e t t e r fro m t h e r»g0 C o m m i s s i o n e r f o r l ands d a t e d 6th h a r c h 1 !?75 wh ic h informed h e r that he r a p p l i c a t i o n f o r l and at plot iMo-14 Bl o c k " , W had b e e n p r o v i s i o n a l l y a p p r o v e d o 0o o o o o o 0 In c o n n e c t i o n with plot No* 14 block; "a ” M t w a r a there ~re also i n s u r a n c e d o c u m e n t s in r e l a t i o n to the h o u s e all in t he n a m e of the d e f e n d a n t ® Th es e d o c u m e n t s s how a s e q uen ce of h a p p e n i n g s l e a d i n g f r o m the a p p l i c a t i o n of a p l o t to b u i l d i n g of the h ous e* ^11 were in the na me of t h e de fe n d a n t o The d e c e a s e d d oe s not a pp e a r a n y w h e r e in th ese d o c u m e n t s »0 »<,«,” wh e n the appeal ca me b e f o r e my l ea r n e d Brotr,«r K i s a n g a J« (as then was) the r e s p o n d e n t stated that she b o u g h t the h ou s e s and co u l d not ci :;nge the name and t nat the d e c e a s e d was p a y i n g tne gr ou nd rent and that they did not c h a n g e the n a m e in the r e g i s t e r of t itl es b e c a u s e they t r u s t e d each other. By co n s e n t of the p a r t i e s tne appeal was adjouivi‘.-d to l i a b l e the respondent ef fe c t the n e c e s s a r y c h a n g e s i n t he r e g i s t e r and this a c c o r d i n g to th e a v a i l a b l e d o c u m e n t s has b e e n d o n e 0 F r o m this it appears to m e pl a i n that althou gh the two ho u s e s w e r e in the n ame of the d e c e a s e d as the legal o w n e r the same were a c t u a l l y b o u g h t by the r e s p o n d e n t and this was .naaifested by the d e f e n c e e x n i b i t s at tne trial and that the c h a n g e of the na me s in the r e g i s t e r of tit le s was a m ere f or mal it y* I c o n s e q u e n t l y hold that the two h ou s e s in q u e s t i o n are the p r o p e r t y of the r e s pon de nt , X n o w deal with the shambcts at Na nguruwe, L w e r u and Madangwa* in his e v i d e n c e the a p p e l l a n t d i d n ot say wh er e the shambas were nor did he p r o d u c e any d o c u m e n t to p r o v e that t he y be l o n g e d t o the d e c eas ed . He did n o t pr od u c e any e v i d e n c e w h e n t-i-i© Hi g h Court. +-n addiv'-e add itional e v i d enc e, in h e r e v i d e n c e the r e s p o n d e n t had t end e r e d d o c u m e n t . * T _ (ExhoD3)o T her e was a sale of the sh am ba at L w e r u b y the d e c e a s e d to the r e s p o n d e n t d a t e d 1 2 o l 06 2 0 Similar documents w er e te nde r e d r e l a t i n g to the ot h e r shamb as at h a d a n g w a and O O o «/4 N an g u r u w e ® I am t h e r e f o r e s at i s f i e d that th e r e was o v e r w h e l m i n g e v i d e n c e at the trial w hich j u s t i f i e d the c o n c l u s i o n s R e a c h e d that the s ha mbas we re b o u g h t b y the r e s p o n d e n t and that they h a v e n o t b e e n p ro v e d to be part of the e st at e of th e d e c e a s e d Ismail Gulamali as c l a i m e d by the appellant* The s ec ond ground of appeal allege s that the l e a r n e d trial m a g i s t r a t e erred in a c c e p t i n g the d o c u m e n t a r y evi de nc e t e n de re d by the r e s p o n d e n t w i t h o u t s c r u t i n i z i n g them, rie argued in e f f e c t that the r e s p o n d e n t a l l e g e d l y b o u g h t the p r o p e r t y f rom d e c e a s e d in 1972„ The a l l e g a t i o n s that the r e s p o n d e n t b o u g h t the p r o p e r t i e s in 1972 w h e n Ismail Gu la ma li d ied is not b o r n out by the e vi den ce on record. E q u al ly f als e is the a l l e g a t i o n that the l e a r ne d trial m a g i s t r a t e did not s c r u t i n i s e the e v i d e n c e t o u c h i n g these do c u m e n t s . H e d e a l t in great l en g t h with the e v i d e n c e t o u c h i n g on e a c h p r o p e r t y in di s p u t e , ^s r e g a rd s tne h o u s e at M i k i n d a n i and a s ham b a at L w e r u the le ar n e d trial m a g i s t r a t e re fe rr ed to two d o c u m e n t s da te d 15th J a n u a r y 1 96 2 and 17th May, 1962 r e s p e c t i v e l y which i n d i c a t e d tnat ismail G u l a m a l i r ec ei ved f r o m the r e s p o n d e n t a total sum of s h s . 7 , 2 0 0 / = f o r the ho us e and shamba. Then he quoted a document dated 12.1.62 w hich reads as follows: "M opato ya ku u z a n y u m b a na shamba l a Lweru. Mimi h a p a ni ismail Gu la mal i wa MiJcindani. N i m e m u u z i a Hi ya ni bi nt ^li wa M i k i n d a n i sh amba l a L w e r u n a n y u m b a No. 2 h Ba z a a r St r e e t M i k i n d a n i zote h izo ni ju mla ya s h s . 7 , 2 0 0 / = (elfu saba mi a mbili) f e d h a hi zo n i m e p o K e a taslimu k a b i s a vitu hi v y o ni v ya ke tu. B ila ya pi n g a m i z i lolote. N a m t u y eyote h a t a w e z a ku pinga". Th en the trial m a g i s t r a t e c o m p a r e d the signat ur es in the ex hi b i t da te d on 15.1.62 and 1 7 . 5 . 6 2 and c a m e to the c o n c l u s i o n tnat they were in dentical and o r i g i n a t e d fr o m the same author. He also c o n s i d e r e d the ev i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g the re m a i n i n g two shambaso H e c a m e to the c o n c l u s i o n that they w e r e b o u g h t by the r e s p o nde nt . I h av e r e v i e w e d the ev i d e n c e on re co rd and I am satisfied, as d id the trial court, that the r e s p o n d e n t o o o o/ 5 ha d b o u g h t th e sha mbas at i'Janguruwe and h a d a n g w a in 1958 and 1956 r e s p e c t i v e l y f r o m S alu m u M tu l i and Saidi N g o n do . It was also e s t a b l i s h e d t hat th e r e s p o n d e n t b o u g h t the h o u s e s long b e f o r e Ismail Gu la ma li h ad diedo The l e a r n e d trial m a g i s t r a t e was right in c o m i n g to t h e c o n c l u s i o n that the h o u s e s and the shambas are the p r o p e r t y of t h e r e s p o n d e n t and no t p ar t of the e s t a t e of the d e c e a s e d Ismail G u l a m a l i .» The secon d groun d of appeal also fails. T h a t b ei ng the ca se and in t he r e s u l t the appeal is d i s m i s s e d w it h c o s t s in this and the c ou rt below. Judge 23o 2.88 D e l i v e r e d in the p r e s e n c e of b o t h p a r t i e s this 23rd day of F ebruary, 1988. Judge 23o 2.88