19810820 TZHC Musoma
The respondent failed to prove the claim for six goats, and the appellant's evidence of returning the cow was uncontradicted. The appellant did not discharge the burden regarding the return of two goats due to lack of witnesses. Judgment should be for the respondent for two goats only.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19810820 TZHC Musoma
- Parties
- Appellant: Robi Chibonde; Respondent: Gati d/o Nwita
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 20 August 1981
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Second Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal allowed in part
- Legal Topics
- Loan Recovery, Burden of Proof, Evidence Assessment
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Robi Chibonde
Appellant
Gati d/o Nwita
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent proved the claim of loaned livestock (one cow and six goats) against the appellant
- 2 Whether the appellant discharged the burden of proof regarding the return of the livestock
Ratio Decidendi
The respondent failed to prove the claim for six goats, and the appellant's evidence of returning the cow was uncontradicted. The appellant did not discharge the burden regarding the return of two goats due to lack of witnesses. Judgment should be for the respondent for two goats only.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed in part
Orders
- decisions of the lower courts set aside
- appellant to return two goats to the respondent
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
/ 1 cl (csu Q- 1 IN THE hIGH COURT OF TtNZANIA AT MUSOMA .. APPELLItT.S JURISDICTION (pc) CIVIL APPEAL NO 111 OF 1979 • (From the decision of the District Court of Mugumu at Muguiñu.in Civil Appeal No0 57 of 1979 - Before R. I0.Lukume Esq. 9 District Magistrte-. Mugumu Primary Gourt Original Civil Case No0 14 o': 1978) ROBI CHIBONDE. . ..OAPPLLIT (Origin1.Defenàn) • Versus GATI D/O NWITA. . . ••• • • •. .RBSPONDENT (Original Plaintiff) JU DG M E N T • Iv1UNY.RA, J.: The appellant was the defendant in Mugumu Urban Primary Court.. The respondent sued him for recovery of one cow and 6 goats which he gave the former as a loan0 The appellant admitted to haié received the cow but disputed the 6 goats0 He said he received only.two goats0 He argued that he had refunded the cow and the two goats0 He called a witness, the village chairman who confirmed that he was present when the appellant.refunded the cow but there was no witness who saw the goats being refunded. The trial court rejeotedhis defence and gave judgment for the respondent for one cow and 6 goats as claimedb The appellant appealed to the District Court of Mugumu and his appeal was dismissed0 This is the second appeal0 I find that the decisions of the lower courts were against the evidence First the respondent/plaintiff alleged that he gave the appellant a 1oanof one cow and 6 goats0 He did not call any witness or produce any documents. The appellant admitted only 2 goats and the cow0 Therefore the respondent did not prove his claim of 6 goas-. If the matter ended therethe judgment should have been for one cow and 2 goats But the appellant called one Makori Kebiriga, who was the parties' chairman at that timed The witness confirmed that the appellant refunded the cow in his presence0 This evidence was not contradicted and it is not known for what reason the trial court rejected. it0 The appellant had tilted the balance in his favour so far as the cow was concerned0 Ls for the two goats, the appellant stated that when he refunded them there was no witnesses0 This being the caae he did not discharge his burdeno The position was that the respondent/plaintiff had proved the suit for 2 goats on1y, I allov the appeal, set aside the decisions of the lower courts and order that the appellant shall refuza - 2 goats to the respondento No order as to costs0 1' MUSOMA f 20TH AUGUST, a98l0 . F. A. NYiRA ____