19940812 TZHC Dodoma
- Citation
- 19940812 TZHC Dodoma
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 12 August 1994
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Second Appeal
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 12 August 1994
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Second Appeal
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that the findings of fact by the lower courts were reasonable and should not be disturbed. The appellant's argument regarding the proper party was rejected as it was not raised at trial.
Court disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal is dismissed with costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Rajabu Mohamed
AppellantIddi Issa
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Compensation Awarded: TZS 17,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the appellant is liable for compensation for injuries caused by his stray dog
- 02
Whether the issue of proper party can be raised for the first time on second appeal
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant argued that he was not the proper party to be sued and that another person, Mohamed Bamadhani, should have been sued instead.
- Respondent
- The respondent maintained that the appellant's stray dog bit his child and sought compensation for the injury and costs.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
appellate practice
Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts should not be disturbed on second appeal unless unreasonable.
- 02
civil procedure
A party cannot raise a new issue on appeal that was not raised at trial.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that the findings of fact by the lower courts were reasonable and should not be disturbed. The appellant's argument regarding the proper party was rejected as it was not raised at trial.
Court disposition
appeal dismissed
- Appeal is dismissed with costs.
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 12 August 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· 12 August 1994
IN mm m:arr COURT OF TANZANIA
AT DODOMA {l?C} c~ APPJ"~L_po. i2 OF 1994 (.From the deeision of the District Court 0£ Kondoa at Kondoa. in Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1994 Original Civil Case No. 1 67 of 1992 If the Primary- Cou:t-t of _ Pa.hi Distriot at Kondoa) RAJA.W MOHAMED!: •••••••••••.•••••••••• APPELLANT Versus lDM ISSA!G\:..u.•.•-~Ja.~-~--• • •., ~ ••• •,• •· ••• ,RESPON.Q.El)l''l.', l.JI.JL G M E N T MSOFFE1 J. 1lhe respc,1tdent sued the appellant before rab.i .Primary Court, Kondoa in a clai~1 of Shs.21 1 700/= demanded as compensation resulting from injury inflicted on his child after being bitten by the a.ppella.nt's stray dog plus costs ~r the suit. It appears from the trial Court record however t'1a t he won only in a sum of Shs. 17t 000/= plus costs ' . ~fthe suit. The appellant unaucces3fully appealed to the Distriot Court at Kondoa and henee this second appeal to this oourt. Both the two Courts below were s~tisfied that the appellant 1 a stray dog bit the respondent 1.s child as aforesaid and that the decreed sum of compensation and costs was adequate in the oircumetances. It is evident that those findings a:te matters of fact; and this Court . , finds nothing un:.?easonable in the same, ln the absence of any unreaso- nableness on the Satne, this, a Court of second appeal, willinot disturb those fbiings. I:f I understood the appellant c~otly from his memorandum of appeal and in his oral
submission to this ,Y ~ou.rt, he appea~J to be sayLDg that the prop~r person to have been sued by the res·· : ndent· was not him but one Mnhamed Bamadhani. With respect to the ~ 1pellant, this point cannot :·'" canvassed now, when he nevar raisec :.t either before the trial ··rimary Court. It is too late in the c1a::· · ;o raise it. Indeed it may ,s well be an after . thoug.'itt·. • ... /2 2 ~~ . I aii ·sa.t1sf1ed. that the oonou:rr~nt findings of the two lower €ourta a.re ~.Qund. '.llie a.weal fails and is dismissed W:itb oosts. J .rr. MSOFFE JUDGE. Delivered. Appellant - P:t'E 2_.ltc Respondent - ~ ,;:;ent. JUDG'l!:. 12/8/94
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.