rajabu mussa vs rahma selemani 1998 tzhc 2027 6 august 1998

IN T H E H T C H C O U R T O F T A N Z A N I A AT. P A R F.S S A L A A M civil, a p p e a l n o . ()/’o f m ? (O r ia irin t i nu f r o m RM C iv i I C a s e No. 232 of 1994 of K i s u l u R e s i d e n t M a g i s t r a t e s C o m . I.. D a r e s S a l a a m ) R A J A B U M U S S A ................ .............................A P P E L L A N T VERSUS R A H M A S F L E M E N T .......................................... D E F E N D A N T J U D O M E N T KALEHKYA, J. R a j a b u M u s s a , A p p e l ] ant., d i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h the d e c i s i o n of lilt; K i s u l u R e s i d e n t M.iu ir,I r a1 e 1m Court (Lonyway, PRM) w h i c h upheld Rahma Selemani's claim for d e l i v e r y a n d p o s s e s s i o n of h o u s e No. 37 Wa.i.l.es Street, b u i l t on plot. No. .150 B l o c k 'H',. D a r es S a l a a m , h a s c o m e to t h i s c o u r t a r m e d w i t h 4 g r o u n d s of Appeal n a m e l y - that there is no agreement, s h o w i n g t h a t he s o l d the r e l e v a n t h o u s e except. I hat he p l e d g e d it. as s e c u r i t y for shs. 1.000.000/= being the p u r c h a s e p r i c e of a m o t o r v e h i c l e w h i c h s u m was to be liquidated t h r o u g h c o l l e c t i o n of h o u s e r ents; t h a t he had o f f e r e d I lie h o u s e to I.lie Respondent., Rahma, for shs. 8.000.000/= supplemented with a "Kibanda" somewhere else which have never been given lo him; lhal he didn't, k n o w the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the s i g n a t u r e he a f f i x e d on d o c u m e n t s at; the Chang'ombe P o l i c e Slat ion u n d e r p o l i c e d u r e s s a n d that, the agreement between t h e m c o n c e r n e d a m o t o r v e h i c l e a n d n o t h o u s e as exemplified by the fact that the R e s p o n d e n t still poss es se s the Motor Vehicle Regist rati on card because the d e b t of shs. 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 / = h a s nt5f. b e e n f u l l y paid. He is s u r p r i s e d that his house has to be p o s s e s s e d by the R e s p o n d e n t w h e n c o n d i t i o n s of their agreement h a v e not. f u l l y b e e n c o m p l i e d with. 'Dip Fespondeivi'- s u e d t he A p p e l l a n t for ilfilivfit y anrl DoPSPSfiion of h o u s e No . 37. prpft f>d on plot No. 150 R l o c k "FT", which he c l a i m e d In h a v e b o u ght f torn I lie A p p e l l a n t dm 29th March, 1 9 (M find Ioi which lie o b l a i n e d Til Ie d e e d No. When I he Appellant wapushed into d e f e n c e he i•<)iin I e r ed !>v r e f n t iny t he e x i s t e n c e of a n y sncli r?ale q u a I i f v i n y it. h o w e v e r by fin e x p Ianal ion I hat he h a d bought a K IA m ' w K e y is1. 1 a t,ion No. TSC 2856 f r o m PI a int. i f f Y R e s p o n d e n f at. 1,000,000./ = ; p l e d g e d t he relevant h o u s e as a .security a n d on c o n d i t i o n that the m o n t h l y reril payment therefrom, t;n be c o l l e c t e d by P 1a i n t.i f f \.Responden t , was l.o d e f r a y s u c h debt, uni il il.fi I iqu ida t io n . Me kidded h o w e v e r I hat lal.er he d i d h a v e s o m e d is c u s s ion w i t h Respondent concerning the p o s s i b i l i t y of the latter purch as in g t he s a i d h o u s e u p o n fulfilment, of c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s , that n e v er t he le ss I.lie t r a n s a c t ion n e v e r s a i l e d t h r o u g h a l t h o u g h at. o n e point, he w a s forced lo s i g n s o m e doeiimenls b e f o t e the [jo lice. Ho insisted that I he a l i e n e d I il le d e e d w.is a pr o d u c t of f r a u d a nd forg e r y . Tn r e s p o n s e the Respondent, m a i n t a i n e d that there w e r e two different agreements between her and A p pe ll a nt . One concerned a motor vehicle for which I lie p u r c h a s e pt ic e , shs. 1,000,000/=, was fu l l y find i m m e d i a t e l y p a i d after ex e cu I ion, a nd the other s o m e I ime laler, c o n c e r n i n g s a I e of the d i s p u t e d house. T h e R e s p o n d e n t A.Pl.a int: i f f c a l l e d 2 wi tn esses apart from herself; Mohamed Ismail, Advocate (PW1) and Fauz Twalib, Advocate (PW.l).while the A p p e 1 1ant.\DefendanI called .'1 w i t n e s s e s , Vincent. Chandenda (DW2) and Maulidi Fddi (DW4) both his t en an ts and R a s h i d J u m a Kaherna, his neighbour, apart: f r o m h i m s e l f . Upon hearing the p a r t i e s and their wit ne s se s I,tie trial Court believed I he p l ain t i f f NRespondent. a nd h i s w i t n e s s e s a n d d e c i d e d in h i s favour. The trial court observed and c o n c l u d e d that t.here were two s e p a r a t e s a l e a g r e e m e n t s between the p a r t i e s -• o ne t e n d e r e d as Rxh, PI , d a t e d 1 r>I h D e c e m b e r , 1993, in r e s p e c t of the 2 mol or v e h i c l e , a nd u n r e l a t e d t o t he o t h e r t e n d e r e d as exh. P2. dated 2 9 t 11 Ma rch , 1 994 . in respect. of the d i s p u t e d h o u s e . Before I.hi.s court. I lie Appellant, d e f e n d e d h i m s e l f w h i l e Mr. Mselem, Advocate, w h o all along advocated f or R e s p o n d e n t , maintained same represe nt at iv e capacity. The Appellant presented h is m e m o r a n d u m of a p p e a l in K i s w a h i I i in the f o r m T h a v e t r a n s l a t e d and p a r a p h r a s e d a b ov e and which he a d o p t e d w i t h o u t a d d i t ions (except, a n s w e r iny a quest, ion by I lie c o m I ) ,il I he hear imi ol this a p p e a l , w h i l e Mr. Mselem argued that Exh. P'2, t r a n s f e r agreement, was never contradicted, and n e i t h e r could .itbe v a r i e d b y oral a g r e e m e n t as t h a t w o u l d be c o n t r a r y to s. 100 (1 ) a n d 101. of t he E v i d e n c e A c t - c i t i n g Hal fan v Ki:c h w a ( 198 0 ) TI,R, .109; that t he c r e d i b i l i t y of w i t n e s s e s as f o u n d by (tie trial court, cannot, be faulted; that Rxh. PI d o e s n ot r e f e r to a n y r e n t or’ tenants hence was a separate agreement; that the A p p e l l a n t ' s 2 n d g r o u n d of a p p e a l involving s h s . 8,000,000/= is an a f t e r - t h o u g h t as it w a s n o t included in the p l e a d i n g s n o r w a s a n y e v i d e n c e o f f e r e d in its regard; that, t h e t h i r d g r o u n d can't, h a v e a b a s e b e c a u s e A p p e l l a n t did not s h o w a n y e v i d e n c e t h a t he w a s e v e r a r r e s t e d by the p o l i c e nor did lie b o t h e r lo s h o w w h i c h of the agreement, w a s he a l l e g e d l y forced to s i g n ; that if the a l l e g a t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g r e n t to d e f r a y the p u r c h a s e price were true the A p p p l l a n t w o u l d h a v e d i s c l o s e d h o w m u c h so far has b e e n p a i d ; t h a t the R e g i s t r a t i o n c a r d of the in\v is si ill in the h a n d s of the R e s p o n d e n t b e c a u s e t h e A p p e l l a n t refused to l a k e it. on s e c o n d t h o u g h t s - c a l l i n g S. 20 a n d .10 of cap. 204, f-iales of G o o d s O r d i n a n c e , to h i s aid, and finally, c i I ed SI u ice B r o t h e r s ( E .A , t.td ) vs M a t h i a s arid T a w a r s K i t o m a l i ( 1.980) Tf,R 294 to s u p p o r t h i m o n the p r o p o s i t i o n that Ap pe l l a n t did fully understand t he c o n t e n t s of the d o c u m e n t he s i g n e d as t he a d v o c a t e s fully expla in ed the s a m e to him. Mi r e p l y I he Appel Ian!' insisted t h a t he d i d not. r e f u s e the c a r d I»u1 that Respondent maintained keeping it. till full payment of t hr1 debt , a n d that the R e s p o n d e n t lured h i m in to g o i n g to the p o I iri> y.I .1 1 ioil . I Ik iv e c a r e f u l l y p a i d d u e a t t e n t i o n to the a r g u m e n t s pr e s e n t ini; I he e v i d e n c e tendered a nd t he appl ic a b l e l aw a n d 1 h a v e but concluded that thin appeal h a s no merit.. T am sat is f i ed that the trial court, p r o p e r l y found that Ihere w e r e two d i f f e r e n t a g r e e m e n t s bet.ween the A p p e l l a n t a nd Respondent, as E x h i b i t e d in the respect ive d o c u m e n t s . Exh. P1 a nd P2. I wil l analyse the g r o u n d s of a p p e a l g e n e r a l l y and t o g e t h e r . PW1 .. M o h a m e d Tsma.i 1 , an A d v o c a t e , d e p o s e d h o w he d r e w u p t he two a g r e e m e n t s a nd it is so i n d i c a t e d o n e a c h of them. He lest ilicil h o w pail ies appr c a c h e d him lot t h i s a n d h o w FI M a a m r y , Advocate, witnessed I lie s i g n a t o r i e s r e g a r d i n g Exh. PI. He f u r t h e r deposed how Advoc at e Fauz T wa ib wi tne ss ed the s a m e p a r t i e s executing the 2nd a g r e e m e n t , Fxh. P 2 . The wi tn e ss showed that Fxh. PI c o n c e r n e d s a l e of a m o t o r 1 v e h i c l e w h i l e Exh. P2 c o n c e r n e d sale of a h o u s e . Mr. F a u z T w a ib , Advocate,, test, i f i e d as P W 3 in support thereof. T h e s a i d E x h i b i t s su p p o r t these testimonies. Exh. PI w a s e x e c u t e d on 1!5th Pec. 199.1 w h i l e Exh. P2 was executed on 79! ti M a r c h . 1.99 4 .T h e r e is n o t h i n g in t h e s e d o c u m e n t s w h i c h suggest, the c o n t r a r y let a l o n e s u g g e s t i n g that, t h e y a r e inter­ related. The trial court, f o u n d Ihese w i t n e s s e s and R e s p o n d e n t c r e di bl e and T find no g r o u n d s to fault that, s t a n d . Roth b e f o r e the trial c o u r t a nd in h is m e m o r a n d u m of a p p e a l t he App e l lant urges to be b e l i e v e d that. Exh. PI. is not. t.el.1 inu t he truth - that it is s u p p l e m e n t e d by an oral understanding between t he t w o w h i c h h a d it t h a t the shs. 1,000,000/=, purchase price, was to be p a i d f r o m the collect, ion of r e n t s f r o m the disputed house which had b e e n p l e d g e d as s e c u r i t y for t he debt.. 4 Apa r I from b e in u I liw.ir l by PW1 a nd 7, 's e v i d e n c e t h i s firgurnent. can't l e g a l l y si a n d a n d noil her f a n it he b o u u h t by c o m m o n sense apart f c om b e i n g b u t t r e s s e d by s o m e c o n I r ad ic t. io n s an<1 i r r e c o n e i IabIe n a r r a t i o n s inherent in h i s e v i d e n c e including p i e a d in g s . I, egal 1 v . as .riaht.lv a r g u e d by Mr. Mselem starting f r o m t he trial court, a l l o w i n g the a l l e g e d o r a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g to c r e e p in the writ ten a g r e e m e n t , Rxh. P1 , w o u l d go c o u n t e r to ss. 100 (1.) and 101 of the E v i d e n c e Aft. Sect. io n 1 00 (I ) p r o v i d e s , in part., " w h e n Ihe lei ms of a c o n t r a c t . . . h a v e b e e n r e d u c e d in a f o r m of a document... no e v i d e n c e s h a l l be g i v e n in p r o o f of the t e r m s of s u c h c o n t r a c t . . . e x c e p t the d o c u m e n t i t s e l f , or s e c o n d a r y e v i d e n c e ' o f its c o n t e n t s in c a s e s in w h i c h s e c o n d a r y e v i d e n c e is a d m i s s i b l e u n d e r the p r o v i s i o n s h e r e i n b e f o r e c o n t a i n e d " , W h i l e S. 101 " W h e n t he t e r m s of a n y s u c h c o n t r a c t ...... h a v e b e e n p r o v e d a c c o r d i n g to s e c t i o n 100, n o e v i d e n c e of a n y o r a l a g r e e m e n t or s t a t e m e n t shall b e a d m i t t e d , as b e t w e e n the p a r t i e s to a n y s u c h i n s t r u m e n t .......... for I h«' p u r p o s e of front i ad ic! in u , v a r y i n g , a d d i n g to, or subtract, ing f r o m its t e r m : " a n d g o e s o n to p r o v i d e s ix e x c e p t i o n s w h i c h d o not. c o v e r the p r e s e n t s iIuaI io n . Authorities, both fo re ig n and local, a b o u n d , b ut a c l a s s i c a l example is the Kli.il fan v K i c h w a case cited by Mr. Mselem, Advocate [ 1 98 0 , T .h .R . 309] in w h i c h , l.ugak i ng i ra , J (as he t h e n was), at p a g e .111 of the j u d g e m e n t h ad the f o l l o w i n g to say, "II is clear f r o m s. 101 that e v i d e n c e m a y not bo a d m i t t e d of an oral a g r e e m e n t for t he p u r p o s e of font rad ict. i n g , v a r y i n g , a d d i n g to , or s u b t r a c t i n g f r o m t he t e r m s of a w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t . It. f o l l o w s , o n t he c o n v e r s e , that p v i d e n c e m a y be admit.ted of s u c h oi,i I a g r e e m e n t if il d o e s not put por t to c o n I i ad i d , var y , a d d to, or s u b t r a c t (torn I he w r i t t e n t pi imr of I Iip c o n t .1 acI : C e n t u r y A u t o m o b i l e s vp H u t c h i n g s R ierne r ( 1965) F .A . 3 0 4 . Pr o v i s o ( b ) I n | |)p s e c t i o n s e t s o i i | t I k * m a t t e r s l o bp t a k e n i n t o r i c c n un l : i n a d m i t t i n g s u c h e v i d e n c e , T h e s e n r o t wo : f i r s t , t Iip u r n 1 a g r e e m e n t sought t o be p r o v e d by s u c h p v i d p i i c p st i nn i d not be i n e o n s i l e n t w i t h I ho t e r m s o f c o n t r a c t ; s e c o n d I v , r p y n r d i s t o bn )i;u l o f I lie d e g r e e o f f o r m a l i t y o f t !i p d o e u m e n I " . Par.-is 1 and 2 of pxh. PI clearly, a n d u n a m b iuuotis 1 y stale, "1. T 11p RRI.T.FR will s e 1 1 a n d T H F R U Y F R w i l l b u y the said m o t o r vptiiclp for a c o n s id p r a f io n of T a n z a n i a s h i l l i n g s o n p m i l l i o n o n l y (T,C!HP. 1 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 / = ) ( h e r e i n a f t e r c a l l e d "the p u r c h a s e pricp"). 2. 'I'HR R U Y F R sha 1 I p a y the a f o r e s a i d pur c h a s e p r i c e u p o n t he s i g n i n g ol t his agreem en t" . It is t r u e t h a t PW1 , M o h a m p d Ismail, Advocate, did not w i t n e s s t h e mriTipy e x c h a n g i n g h a n d s but. it is n o t u n u s u a l that pa rt ies who h a v p c o m m o n u n d e r s t a n d itig, in most business transactions, execute d o c u m e n t :: before? w h o e v e r is l e g a l l y a nd o f f i c i a l l y a l l o w e d • f' at lest , a n d p r o c e e d , at their own p ac e and in a d i f f e r e n t area, to I r a n s a e l I he e x c h a n g e of h a r d c a s h f r o m o n e to a n o t h e r . T h i s point was not pursued for c l a r i t y b u t in m y v i e w the omission is n o t fatal to the R e s p o n d e n t 's case . That said if s t a n d s out cl p a r l v that legally I Iip a l l e g e d oral ag ree me nt can not be imported into pxh. PI as apart, from its f o r m a l i t y w i l l complpfelv change its import. That apart, even t r e a d i n g on m e r e c o m m o n s e n s e , the a l l p y a t ion as p r e s e n t e d by the A p p e l l a n t , fundamentally material as il w o u l d seem, assuming it e v e r took p l a c e , cannot, be e x c l u d e d in a n y agreement, in respect, of the t r a n s a c t i o n of the n a t u r e t hat led to t he format ion of Fxli. PI. W h y s h o u l d it. be e x c l u d e d if t hat w a s the u n d e r s t a n d i n g b e t w e e n p a r l i e s ? A p p e l 1 aril, h a s n o t e x p l a i n e d why, if true, was it h i d d e n ! Also il is not. of insignificance that t h e r e are contradictions and in e o n s ist encefi on t tie p a r t of the A p p e l l a n t 6 regarding H ip a 11p g p d oral a g r e e m e n t s u p p l e m e n t i n g Fxh. 1. In h i s affidavit . for leave to d e f e n d the s u i t , ' ( a d m i t t e d as Exh. 7) in t>a r a . 4 . I lie A p p e 1 1an t slat ed . " U p |hi (j we e n t e r e d into the s a i d ay t e e m e n I we had orally a g r e e d that s i n c e Id i d riot h a v e the p u r c h a s e p r i c p i.e shs. 1..000.000/= r e q u i r e d for the said v e h i c l e T w n u T d p l e d g e m y a f o r e s a i d h o u s e as s e c u r i t y , a n d I lie p l a i n t i f f w a s to r e c e i v e the rent a c r u i n g f r o m I tie s a i d h o u s e tint, i 1 the 1 iquidat ion of the d e b t . T h e r e n t is shs. 1 0,000./= p e r m o n t h " . In the w r i t t e n statement of d e f e n c e , para 2. the Appellants., ma ini a ins the s a m e s l o t y but goes further and stales, " . (o I Io w iny t he bt e a k d o w n of I.he s a i d K IA veil ic Ie t h e d e f e n d a n t a p p r o a c h e d t he p l a i n t i f f to r e g i s t e r his d i s s a t i s f a c t ion u p o n w h i c h it w a s a g r e e d t h a t on top of t he s a i d v e h i c l e t h e P l a i n t i f f s w o u l d b u y t he t tie D e f e n d a n t a sm a l l h o u s e in c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the D e f e n d a n t s u r r e n d e r ino the suit h o u s e to the Plaint.iff. T h e D e f e n d a n t is sti l l w i l l i n g to run tender the s a i d h o u s e to (tie P l a i n t i f f u p o n f u l f i l m e n t of the a f o r e s a i d r o n d it io n s . . .". However, in h i s oral tes tim on y before the trial, c o u r t , the Appellant brings in t o t a l l y a n e w f a c t o r w h i c h he m a i n t a i n e d before t h i s court, in g r o u n d t w o of h is m e m o r a n d u m of a p p e a l . He deposed, " ..... it (iiiv ) w o r k e d for o n e w e e k orilv. T e v e n t o l d p l a i n t i f f t h a t the m o t o r v e h i c l e h a d c e a s e d e n g i n e . S h e g a v e me shs. 3 5 0 , 0 0 0 / = for r e p a i r s . S he t o l d me t h a t I s h o u l d sell h er the h o u s e . ! d e c l i n e d . T t o l d h e r that: I w o u l d o n l y sell for 8 m i l l i o n s h i l l i n g s . S h e s a i d that, s he w o u l d sell h e r h o u s e in t o w n so t h a t s h e c a n b u y m y h o u s e . P l a i n t i f f o f f e r e d me a a b a n d a in K e k o or M t o n i K i j i c h i . T d e c l i n e d . I told her t h a t t h e r e w a s abaiida in T a n d i k a g o i n g for 1 . r) mill iori sh i I 1 inu s a n d T c o u l d m o v e t h e r e s o o n T w a s paid pur ch as e price". Shortly after t h i s statement' he w e n t on to s a y that he c o u l d vacate the d i s p u t e d h o u s e if p a i d shs. R m i l l i o n and g iv en ^kil )anda wort.h I .’ i m i 1 I ion ! 7 F r o m ♦h e a b o v p c o n t r a d i<r! ions a nd in e o n s i st.enres what, he .is u r o p o u nd in u w o u l d naturally i'rvoII against c o m mo n sense. Fits!., w h y omi I I Iih c o n t e n t s of p. 11 a . 2 of the w r i t t e n s I a I e m e u I of defence f r o m the a f f ida v i I (Kxh. P7 ) if af. all lliny w i n e true? S e c o n d I v . h o w d o wh rpi'onri le I Iir c o n t e n t s of par a . 2 of the wt it ten s t a t e m e n t of d e f e n c e w i I h I he ot a I test imon y in c o u r t ? Thirdly, don.q i I, t nn w i t h c o m m o n R e u s e that, the Respondent, could h a v e p a r t e d will) s hs . 3 fifl .000./ = for r e p a i r of a v e h i c l e s he had s o l d at a p r i c e of 1.000.000/= just, a w e e k before, a price s i m p l y s e c u r e d by 10 .000/= rent . m o n t h l y , when, by a I I m e a n s she h a d not pocketed even a months' ten! b e c a u s e a m o n t h ha d not. yet. lapsed?! What, w o u l d I he shs. 3 r)0,000/ = be for - a loan, a grant;, or' what ! W o u l d s he be b u y i n g h e r o w n p r o p e r t y ! Only a deranged being can partici pa te in s u c h t r a n s a c t ion. Im iiIr I h I y , a l t h o u g h blood relal ions a n d f r i e n d s h i p can lead to sofl lo a n s or g r a n t s (but no o n e ha s s u g g e s t e d the e x i s t e n c e of such relationship between the two), is it p o s s i b l e that the Respondent c o u l d part with hi s v e h i c l e , at a p u r c h a s e p r i c e of 1 , 0 0 0 , floO/" p a y a b l e in renta l co l l e c t ions of shs. 1 20,000/=: a year ( 1 0 , 0 0 0 / = x 12 m o n t h s ) which transaction would t a k e fijs y e a r s before the w h o l e s u m is l i q u i d a t e d ? P u t t i n g all. t he a b o v e a s i d e , while before the lower court the A p p e l l a n t throughout t a l k e d of a m o n t h l y r e n t of 1 0,000./ = from rents, on appeal, while tesponding to q u e s t i o n s by r o u r t , lie sa id I hal il w a s 1 r>,,000/•- ! Not only I he a b o v e , whi le in h i s oral lest imon y A p p e l l a n l said that after the m \ v s a l e t r a n s a c t i o n he introduced Respondent, to the t e n a nt s and the R e s p o n d e n t raised rents to r e c o u p her' money quickly, D W 2 a nd ,1, w h o p o s e d as her tenants simply testified to h a v i n g b e e n fold to p a y the rent to m a m a K a i d i . Is it p o s s i b l e that, n o n e c o u l d have testified to s u c h touchy if not crucial h a p p e n i n g 011 their income? Tri f act. . D W 2 , d e p o s e d , "The r ent a l r e m a i n e d at shs. 2000/= p e r uiont h", whi le D W 4 said "from 1990 I paid 200n/-.per mom 1 pay the s a m e to d a t e " . And yet sti l l we h a v e h i s c o n I radic! ions teyardiny M ir s i g n i n g of the a g r e e m e n t , I n h i s e x a m i n a t i o n in c h i e f , fie s a i d "I had no wt it Ien a g r e e m e n t w i t h plaint iff for b o t h the h o u s e or vehicle. T did not g o to Tsinai 1 . T d o not know I he p l a c e . I signed the d o c u m e n t at chany'ombe Pol ice u n d e r threats. T d o not. k n o w what the d o c u m e n t 1 signed was about.". At I.he s a m e I im e , in the s a m e d e p o s i t ion. w h e n s h o w n Rxh. P2 he i d e n t i f i e d it as the o n e w h i c h he s i g n e d under dur ess at f.lie p o l i c e s t a t i o n . Surprisingly however, in r e - e x a m i n a t i o n (the Appellant, w a s then being defended by Mi . Mucirinda, A d v o c a t e ) fie h a d I lie c o u r a g e of g i v i n g the following contrary a n s w e i , " T h e s i g n a t u r e in Rxfi . PP. is min e . T s i g n e d at. p l a i n t i f f ' s h o u s e . Tt w a s a m o t o r v e h i c l e a g r e e m e n t " . Not of less s i g n i f i c a n c e is h i s deni.il I ha! he is nol Rajabu Mussa bill Pajabu Yusuf as! r i d i n g if as o n e of f he factors I.hat. the t w o a d v o c a t e s (PW1 and 2) didn't k n o w hi m, but. h i s o w n witnesses, his t en ant s and n ei g hb ou r . D W 2 , 3 and 4, c o n s i s t e n t l y ident i I'i ed a n d r e f e r r e d to h i m as P a j a b u M u s s a . Tf T s mail a nd T w a i1) d i d nol k n o w h im a m i fold lies, c o n c o c t itry e v e r y t h i n g they s a i d about the a g r e e m e n t s i n c l u d i n g his n a m e h o w about, t h e s e close personalities he trusted to the e x t e n t of c a l l i n g t h e m to h i s a i d ? D o t h e y a l s o not. k n o w the n a m e of t h e i r landlord? As to I tie quest ion of tenant s p a y i n g rent; to a w o m a n called mama Saidi. o n b e h a l f of Rahma (Respondent) as n a r r a t e d by D W 2 - 4, even if b e l i e v e d d o e s not. affect, the R e s p o n d e n t ' s story. N aturally once o w nership changes, the r e n t s h a d a l s o to c h a n g e I fie dest inaf ion: to R a h m a ' s p u l s e a nd not Appellants. 9 There is vet a n o t h p r •c o n t r a d ic i io n l)p I v/rph Appellant. a n d h is wi I ri('r;s 0 W 3 . R a s h i d .luma K a h a m a . Th if> wi l.riPSS d e p o s e d that he wiInessed hi - .id i I'piiipn I in lespecl of a v e h i c l e b e i n g s i g n e d at R a h m a 's r e s i d e n c e : that Iir a l s o d id s i g n a n d so w e r e o t h e r s p r e s e n t ; that he s a w R a h m a p a v i n g A p p e l l a n t 200,000/= pash with a promise In p a y 100.000/= in .i w e e k ' s I imp a n d that t h i s m o n e y w;is for r e p a i r of the relevant. motor' v e h i c l e w h i c h w a s p a r k e d just, o u t s i d e and w h i ch needed r e p a i r k to the injector pump, c l u t c h and brakes. On the other hand however. Appellant, t a l k e d of s hs . 350,000/= being r e p a i r c o s t s of the v e h i c l e a f t e r it. h a d w o r k e d for iust a week an d e v e n t h e n not foi the d e f e c t s e x p l a i n e d by I)W3 b ut c e a s i n g of the e n g i n e , a nd i n f e r a b l y n ot at r e s p o n d e n t ' s n l a c o . Thp trial eourt rightly found this w i t n e s s not c r e d i b l e and T have f o u n d no c l u e for arriving at t he c o n t r a r y view. Regarding I he a r g u m e n t that the Reg. card is si ill in p o s s e s s i o n of R e s p o n d e n t I b i s h a s a m p l y b e e n e x p l a i n e d by the latter that, as the d u p l i c a t e had b e e n sent to Ml war a a n d h a d b e e n in j o i n t name w it h O RD H w h i c h had e x t e n d e d a loan to h e r it t o o k I ime In gel a d u p l i c a t e by w h i c h I ime the A p p e l l a n t had already changed hir. m i n d . T h i s a l s o cann o t ass ist Appellant , I have laboured Through the v a r i o u s c o n t r a d i c t i o n s for clarity a n d a l s o to e s t a b l i s h t he s o u n d n e s s of t he trial court's f in di ng s on the c r e d i b i l i t y of w i t n e s s e s . Although, generally, the I rial four I is the o n e b e s t p l a c e d to a s s e s s the c r e d i b i l i t y of w i t n e s s e s w h o t e s t i f y b e f o r e it. an d r a r e l y s h o u l d t he c o u r t o n appeal intervene (J. M. K a s u k a vs G e o r g e H u m b a , C i v i l Appeal No. 76 of 10 9 6 , c A, M w a n z a Registry ( un r e p o r ted ) ) the c o n t r a d i c t i o n s e x h i b i t e d and e x p l a i n e d above would have jus tified this co ur t to in te r ve ne and o v e r t u r n the d e c i s i o n if the s a i d trial court, h ad arrived a I an o p p o s i t e c o n c l u s i o n , for such glaring i r r e f o n e i Ia b l e mat lets in e v i d e n c e a r e I he o n e s envisacied under I he exce p t ion. 10 F show Id make ihip more ol'SPfv;)! inti which somehow lias Rome b earin o bp f o r r touchina the Appe 1 1ant 1s c 1a i m that he was forced lo sign F. xl i . V2 f')t which Mr . Mselem c i I ni l K ito m ali casp. ApppM anl difl not ra is e it in so many words but on look of t h i n«s . today,, shs. 7 0 0 ,0 0 0 /- may rrod) to bo on t hf l lower side re g a rd in g v a I up of a hoi js o said to have r) rooms in I he main part, and spvpn in t Iip backyard. A ppellant may. on second thoughts, have rioted that, hp had not spourpd I Iip proper value of h is house hpnce t hp tu rn round and d is p u tin g having sold it.. S u ff ic e to say that uiiIpss fra u d , or absence of fre e consent, t.o a co n trac t arp nt o v e d . the adequacy of coiisideral ion is not a m a tter t o be decided noon by the c o u rts. Th i s was w ell argued by Mr . M s e I phi in t he I i ia 1 con r t . S. 3!i (1 ){a) of our I,aw of C o n t r a c t O r d i n a n c e C a p . 413 p r o v id e s :- "25(1 1(a) An a g r e e m e n t to w h i c h the consent, of the p r o m i s o r is f r e e l y g i v e n is not v o i d m e r e l y b e c a u s e the c o n s i d e r a t ion is i n a d e q u a t e " . What. the learned author (Dr. AVTAR SINGH in h i s b o o k . L A W OF CONTRACT 3rd RDTTTON, 1 9 R 0 at p a g e 79) o b s e r v e d on a s i m i l a r p r o v i s i o n of the law in In d i a p u l s o u r legal sland in a n u t s h e l l " T h o u g h the I n d i a n Gout iact Acl d o e s not in t e r m s p r o v i d e that c o n s i d e r a t ion must be g o o d or v a l u a b l e to s u s t a i n a contact, it h a s a l w a y s b e e n u n d e r s t o o d that c o n s i d e r a t i o n m e a n s s o m e t h i n g w h i c h is of s o m e v a l u e in t;he e v e of the law. Tt mus t be real a n d not i 1 l n s o r y . whel tier a d e q u a t p or not .... S o l o n g as I he c o n s i d e r a t ifin is not u n r e a l it is s u f f i c i e n t if it be of slight, v a l u e to d a y " . a n d lie g o e s on, "rf a p a r l y g e l s w h a t lie h a s c o n t r a c t e d for a n d if it is of s o m e v a l u e , w h i c h m a y be great o r s m a l l , the court's will not. e n q u i r e w h e t h e r it. w a s an equivalent, to the p r o m i s e w h i c h he g a v e in r e t u r n . The adequacy of the c o n s i d e r a t ion is for the p a r t i e s to c o n s i d e r ■it the t imo of m a k i n g the a g r e e m e n t , not. for the c o m Is w h e n it is sought. If) be e n f o r c e d . ( FU.AOKBtJRN, J. in R o 1 t on vs M a d d e n . 1 H 7 3 LR 9 OR. 55 1." 11 The abrjvp sp i 1 Is av'i!f i n t *■■> y e t a n o t Hot argum ent b y Mr - . MseIem that the A p p e l l a n t c m 1I bp ava i 1ed t bp d e f e n c e ^ f n o n - e s t ~ f a c t u m ( wIi p i p he ( - . Hi say ' I tip document is no! mi (i p 1 ) c i I i nu K ilo m a l i case . II w i l l bp nol pd that A i »i »r» 1 1 n 11 1i s a Invman and hiiipih p- sptil p iI in t h i s appeal and that Iip co u I d p o s s i b l y liavp brought o u t'. I bat i|pf n u r p ip sf > nianv w ords: r i p v p r l Ii p I r s s bp is c:b a 1 1 p n g i n g lli.i I I ip was fo rc p d lo si mi Exh. P2 a I I Iip p o l l op s l at ion. T w i l l (bus c o n s i d e r w h p fb p r such d e fe n c e c o u ld bp. a v a i l e d to him. In d p p d I he d e f e n c e of n o n —r s 1. factum was det ailedlv d iKfii'iKPil bv t he Court of A p n e a 1 in K i t o m a I i rass where I be pt i n c i p l e pi i)noinif‘ P(l bv b i n d P e n n ing . M . R . in HAl.T.H" v l.EF, ( 1 c)fS^ ) 2. ('II. 17. w a s fici'ppl pd as a I i u p bt o a d pt ino ip Ip fo I Iip law governing in o u r j u t i sd icl io n as w e l l , that is. " W h p i i p v p r a m a n o f full a g e a n d i u k Ip r s t a n d in g w h o f a n r p a d a n d wr iI r , s i g n s a legal d o c u m e n t w h i c h is put b e f o r e h i m f o r s i g n a t u r e - b y w h i c h T m p a n a doeiimpnl w h i c h , il i:; a p p a r e n t o n I Iip f a c p of il , is. iulrutdpd lo h a v e Ii>ga I c o n s e q u e n c e s . Mien,. if Iip d o p s not ! al<p I Iip t r o u b l e lo r p a d if. but s i g n s a s it is. r e l y i n g o n I Iip w o r d of a n o t h e r as to ils c h a r a c t e r o r c o n t e n t s o r e f f e c t , h e cannot, b p b e a r d lo s a y that it is not b i s dnruinpiit . R v b i s c o n d u c t in s i g n i n g it be tias i e p r e s e n t « d t o all t h o s e i n t o w h o s e b a n d s it m a y c o m e , that it is b i s d o c u m e n t ; a n d o n c p I b e v act u p o n it a s b e i n g h i s d o c u m e n t , he c a n n o t g o b a c k o n il . a n d s a y it w a s a n u l l i t y from I Iip b e g i n n i n g " . T h e court o ( appp a I wp ii I on lo lay d o w n s i t u a t i o n s w h e r e the principle c o u l d bp r e l i e d upon, a nd t h e s e a r e e n u m e r a t e d in the head notes lo the c i t e d c a s e |{ i I o m a I i in 1 9 8 0 Tf.R, "(iii) the p l e a of n o n - e s l - f a c t u m is,, however, available in a p r o p e r c a s e for 1 lie r e l i e f of (a) P E R S O N S w h o for p e r m a n e n t or t e m p o r a r y r e a s o n s (not l i m i t e d lo b l i n d n e s s or i l l i t e r a c y ) a r e not c a p a b l e of r e a d i n g the document, to be s i g n e d a n d s u f f i c i e n t l y u n d e r s t a n d it, that is u n d e r s t a n d i n g it at least to the poi n t of d e t e c t i n g a f u n d a m e n t a l d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n the a c t u a l d o c u m e n t a n d I tie document, as as t he s i g n e r h a d b e l i e v e d if to be. (I') i l l i t e r a t e or s e n i l e p p r s o n s w h o cannot t e ad or a p p r p h e n d a leaal d o c u m e n t : "l 2 (<-) Pfirsons w ! m p e r m a n e n t l y o r t e m p o r a r i 1 v arfi u n a b l e t h r o u g h no fault of I he i rs , to h a v e . w i t h o u t i»xpl inal ion, a ny real u m l m si a nd ing of Hie f>u r f>r >r I of ,i |ia i I ii'H Ia r <lo< a line iiI . w h e t h e r I Ita Ibe from dp ffx*I ive educaI io n . i l l n e s s or inna I e in c a p a c i I v . ( iv^ the r e s p o n d o n f s w h o d i d not . t o t h e k n n w l riIor o f t h e company. u n d e r s t a n d I Iip R ik j I i s h b i n a u n g f i rind w p r p , as such, i n t i o p o s i t i o n t o u m l n r s l .'irul t Vip f u l l p u r p o r t , and legal i m p 1 i e a t. i n n s o f I ftp t e r m s a n d c o n d i t i o n s printed in that, l a n g u a g e w i t h o u t e x p l a n a t i o n in Swahili b e l o n g to a c l a s s of p e r s o n s in w h o s e f a v o u r the d o c t r i n e of n o n - p s t - f a d um w o u l d o p e r a t e . ; (v) a l t h ou gh courts will not n o r m a l l y intervene to protect a c o n t r a c t inn p a r t y a g a i n s t I lie c o n s e q u e n c e s o f h i s o w n frilly, t h e y wi I I d o s o w h p r p t h e p a r t y s e e k i n g e q u i t a b l e r e l i e f is a p o o r a n d i g n o r a n t p e r s o n w h o h a s b e e n o v e r r e a c h e d in t h e a b s e n c e o f i n d e p e n d e n t , a d v i c e . (vi) T h e a b o v e p r i n c i p l e a p p l i e s In " c a t c h i n g b a r g a i n s " and in I lie c a s e o l <h*a I i n g w i t h uneditca Ipd , ignorant pet s o n s , M u ' b i n d n n ol s h o w i n g I h e f a i r n e s s ol I h e I r a n s a e l ion I ies u p o n I h e p e r s o n w h o s e e k s Io o b l a i n the benefit of the contract; ( v i i ) .......... ( v i i i ) . . . . w h e n o n e o f t h e p a r l i e s l o a v e r y o n e r o u s rind o p p r e s s i v e cont met. p l e a d s n o n - e s t factum, the clearest evidence is r e q u i r e d t o s h o w t h a t t lie d i s p u t i n g parly c l earv u n d e r s t o o d the nature of the d o c u m e n t h e s i g n e d ...... ". Tn this Kilomali's case far m e t s X p e a s a n t s in what was known as "Growing contracts" were being made lo sign on standard contracts .i I r e a d y prepared by a bill e h cov, and in Rug! ish language which they did not understand requiring them to receive 'stock - srrcIs' for p l a n t in g on e o n d it ion that they w o n 1 el s e l l to the said company Ihe harvested seeds for expot I . T e rms and conditions in Ihp cont racl simply set out right's of the company on our hand arid dutips and obligations of the farmer\neasants on the other without imposing obiigal ion or 1 iabi I ilv on the comnanv or conferring rights on the peasanI\farmer . The company had sued the 1 brollipr farm ers on Ft u n i s due on I Ii p m o w in g con I r act . D ecidin g , Ki . i i n s l I Iip comnanv . as summar i spd in ! Iip head notes, I Iip four I of A p p p .i I 11p 111 . " ' H ip 'Rrnwinn f r j i i l i . h -I ' in th is case is an u n c o n s c i on;ib I e ha roa i u , f a 11 i n o w i III i n I Ii p ca I eg o ry of ' c a I.eh i ng bat'an i n ' , in which iineonsoienl ions ijsp was made by one side of I Iip t bp dowpi ,it i s i n n out r >f the conl i ;irl i ng wpakness of I he o th e r sid e. which t Iip com I should refuse to en fo rce on poi i i I a b 1p m ound " , ,ind . e I at i f v i mi I Iip ( ’.! obsi -’ i v e i l . "It is a p p a t *p n I from I tip 1G r o w i n g r o n f r n c t 1 that I bn undpfakinu w, i s a r:r>MMtio n vpnl h ip of b o t 11 p a r t i ps , .is I Iip i Pspoud<Mi I m owm s werp to bp paid only if I t ip t a tin i i to v p 11 1 111 p wa d p a p t o f i ! , and it would I >p unconsciouahlp to hold only o u r n a tty l ia b l p for I Iip r isks and Iossps of thp common ve n tu re ". 1 consider I Ii p two eases to be d iffe r e n t in I lie i r e n t i r e l y , Tn K ito m ali casp I he dp f 'endant s \f t ej s p o n d p n t s did not rl i s p i l l e the s ig n in g of the contract neither did they a lle g e that they did so under duress. The court was m ainly concerned w ith the unequal b a rg a in in g power of the part ies. Tn the case at . hand however, the A ppellant d is p u te s having signed I he non I t a c t . , and, argues that , il he did it was ; done under d m ess., p ro p o s itio n s which are not supported and ate c o n tra d ic te d by evidence as a lre a d y found. The eon! t a e l s (Rxh. PI and 7.) ate sim ple c o n tra c ts concerning s a le of a moloi v p h ic lp and a house; P W 1 a n d 7. Advocates who h a v e been found very c r e d ib le by I lip t r i a l court and t h i s court, asw e l l , i ti t h e i r Ipst imonies they deposed how they e x p la in ed in Ki s w a h i l i I he content's of these c o n tra c ts to a ll p a r t i e s before ex ec u tio n . The cla im of having signed t tie c o n tra c t (Rxh. P2) at the po 1 i ce slat i on m i l i t a t e s u n re s e tv e d ly against the weight of the evidence and cannot stand. Thus the fa c ts do not br i n g t hi s case under the p r i n c i p l e of non -est factum. For reasons discussed above the appeal stands dism issed in its e n t i r e t y . (F, . R . Ka 1e y e v a ) JMDGR U p I i v p r p <1 o n tl-J- :~e tl t-s. M c e A a--\ 3- (L^J! tc ■> ,1 I c+rMf? ffcat f k f * 7 T Deputy Regi st r ar High Court of T a n / a m a ;;i!' ■ P a r*rs -S a !a a fU -U-