19860911 TZCA Dar es Salaam

..,...~-,iL:>~ ....1,-.\r, - ...... -·...-... . ' 'I ./ t' ·.,1 ' IN THE COURT OF APl'EAL OF TANZANIA 'A'l' TANGA .CPRAM: MAKAME, J.A.; IC[SANGA, J.A. And. OMAR, J.A. CIVIL APPEAL NO, 10 OF 1986 SAID I SHEKAONJI:KI\ • • • 0 • • • o • • APPELLANT ; ... -· VERSUS ' ... ··'r #. KIBAYA ALLY. .. . • • • • •RF.SPONDENT (Appeal from the Judgement of the llilgh Court pf Tanzania. a.t •ranga) (Ka.poor, Ag. J •) l do.ted the 9th day of March, 1984 in (PC) Civil li.QP<W.l lLo, 3 of 1283 '•, JUJX;..MBNT OP TEE_Q.Qilll'!'. lCTSANGlh_ .hl_.J_ This is a third a.pJ)aal in which the appellant Saj,di Sheka.oneka. is appealing a.ga.inst the decision of the Higb Court !or reversing -'. ' the concurrent decisions of the Prima.cy Court and the District f 'f·, i Court on a disputo over a. piece of la.nd. We have to point out ·-~ , . at once tha.t the ev.idence ln the CMe wa,a very ba.dly recorded by ( l :• ,. the trial magistra.te. The evidence as raoorded is ,rery sketohy a.nd ~·•, t:·. -l~i· in soine places it is unintelligible. The handling of the ca.se a.~ a whole by the Priraa.ry Court wa.i:J too ca.sual a.nd le_a.ves e. lot to be desired. We ha:ve to bring this to the attention of the ma«istra.te ...·. concerned with a note that this state of .a.f!aira shouJ.d not be a.llowed to continue. r· . ,. ~ As fa.r a.s we can. gather from, ihe record,: the .faote of the ca.se as found by both the Prima.ry Co~ta.nd' the :Q_~strict' Court a.re as .. . :'-- follows:- The a.ppella.nt and the reepondent!a fa.ther, one Mzee > • . '' I Ally, exchanged theiit sha.mba.s between ea.oh q:ther. The appellant / /· r--· :, ....... ::•.' /. '' ', \I ,._ ~ ··, '?••• • " /',,!' f ~ . I ,;·- ) .'-) ·: ' !. -. 2 - 1· 1·p I •· occupied Mzee Ally I s sharnba a.t Ngererna. whilo Mzea Ally oocupied the appellant I s ahamba at Magunga.. It would a.ppaa.r tha.t du.ring the ,·•.. ', '/ . Government progra.rrq:i1e. for villa.gilization in 1975 the l!.espondent I s I !/, father i.e. Mzee Ally moved--to Ngerema. where his original sba.mba was. ;; There, ho a.pproa.ched the a.ppcllant for ~ return of his original a~ba to hilll/3elf, promising a.t the sa.me time to restore to the appellant his (a,ppellant 1 s) shembe, Et,t MElgungo.. •,• Before the restoration of the appellant ..tb the sha.mba. could be effected·, ·howwer, the appellant \ . .. fell sick ..end wa.s 'hospita.;i.ized at the K.o.r-1.c,. Moshi £or"somo ti.roe • ~.Meanwhile· t~e respondept I s father, Mzee Ally, died,- . . When the ' 1·_· . app0llant .;1'.'eturned from tbe hospito.l, h~:-i"ound the respondent .I : occupying .the disputed slw,mba. i.e. tha.t shamba a.t l''la.gunsa which the ...: '. . (·., (•· .z;-espondent I s fa.ther ha.d agreed to restore to':the a.:ppellant 1 The .... .>r-, appellant accordingly derrinded tha.t shamba. from the .respondent, but the respondent refuted. the. c la.im. The respondent'~ defenoe wa.a ,.·, that he bad nothing to do with any ·sucb claim be.cause he we.a not •l•j ·, .. ' a. pa.rt:( t.9 the agreement 'whereby his deceased fa.ther had promieed ~•~· I ·;.I.}' to r~'atore t_he suit s ha.oibn. to tho app!3lla.nt, nor did hill d ecee.aed . ~- -~-;,,~ ... ,· I ' fa.the~ ~orm him of any:such agreement, ,.! .. /i ·,I I Both the Prir,1a.ry Court and ·the Diot'riot Court found that ·'~- the respondent's deceased fa.ther did agree to restore the suit . : .-.~;;· . . ., 1 . oha.mba. to the a.ppellant, a.nd on;tha.t:~asis they allowed the e.ppella;nt 1 s ·:-r_-- ,' cla.im to the shamba. In reversing the concurr~nt decisions of both j ...,:1 courts, how·ever, the High Court_ to<?k ,the view tha.t 'the Primary Court ,· I . , ... ' f ,1 ·t erred in' believing the ·appellant•·s··wi'trie~sea, and that the District 11 Court did not scrutinize. ,the evidenoe on record. · With .great respect to the lea.rned Acting Judge, tha.t view is ·unte,na.ble~ · Tho finding ., ~' . . . . .·. ·./·3. ·,. 'J • ~I, , • ·,·' ,·.. , ... c-,IJ ... • . ~-·."'. -~ ,_· .··:.• .. .._:.r~• .... ··-~J-' _·;,. . •.[i./, . ..: -'(:' ··.·. ,. •; '~);e~-.¥·..,frizl- - r fi:. 7).•'11~~~4••.!. ;os._~......:~ ~~:~, '--•-o-~~ ~l' ;: . ·-,,"~;~;\\.•.":.~~-"-·'~·'A'"~ ·1,,,.."'.;~,',#~1·4'{.;: --------t.--~.::..._,~--~- ~:t _, ~~~;-. ......... ,-...f)'.J,~t ...,.• • ry,.,c . . ;:·~ ;r,· .... ·i .. .. \. ,/ t, '1ll1.__ J. lf!J. •. / i1I~ h, , ,1\ ;:the :; - 3 - Primary Court which wa.s upheld by the DistI;"ict Co~t we.s amply supported by the evidence o:..' :.,\'1.1 and P.W.2 which wo.s to the effect tha.t·· the rcopon':1-ent I s deceam;,d fa.ther had o.groed to re a tore the ' ' i'•Jl 1 11 l disputed. shamba, to the ·Q,Ppellant in return for his own or~inaJ. ,: I. sha.mba. a.t Mgercma.. The lea.rned. Ac.ting Judge ha.s_·sugc;ested no rea,~on, '. and none is appa.rent on the record~. why these wi }nesses should ~":, h.we ,been disbelieved. We th:ink the.t the critioism levelled by ,l· .• _the High Court :'n this. a.spect of tf1e ma.tter was _OOJllpletoly unjustii'iQcl.. .,, .! :r ' ,~ I:· I I The High Court also critici~ed the lowe~ cow:ts on the ground that while they restored the appellant to··his origina.1 shamba. at . Magunga.; they did or sa.id nothin~ a.bout rootori.ng the respond.ant .!to the she.mba at Mgerema, whioh hi1J :1ocea.sed fa,ther had origine.lly , .. in .. exchanged with the_ appellant for the one L\ disp'llte. . ,~,. Again this 'tontention is e11tirely without 1.ierit. The evi4ence of P.W,1, P,W.3 ' and D.W.2 ma.kes it ·very '.clear thap}the .respon~e;itls fa,the:t purported to give 1;he Mgerema. sha.mbo. to the c:.~)e:1.:!.ant in. exchange· when tho,t .! /' shamba. did not belong to him~ the slla.mba, in fe,ct belonged to one . . ,... Mz9e Kip:Lngu whoGe son, one Afrecl ·Kipin:;,u, ha.s no:w 'inherited it and is ·, .. ~~ occupying,·tho aa.me •. So tha.t the a.ppollant ca.nnot pl:'operly be eX]?ected ·1 ' .. to return to the _respondent a. shamba the title of which he wa,s never given in ~he .f,i,·st pla.ce. The evidence shows that this sta.te of a.ffa.irs ha.s come about because the respondent I s fa,ther failed, ,: .,r wh~ther innocently or by des~n, to pa.ss the title of the relevant .. ,f: shamba. to the appellant in the' first plo.ce, -and yet there :l,e ... ·· ... , . . ~! . - nothing on the x:ecord to su~;gest the.t th~ ~:.,;-:>71ant was in axry ,we~ to bla111e for it • ...... / 4. . lr,. .,,~\. \\; ·,'/' ' ,. ,, '• . I (.'.:ir _., ' ·1. ,.·,,t .• i•· <F,~: }«:-.'"•< . : '° " ~•- ~.1,•-.,,:, _., _.,,..-.;·."I •+:tl _.,.;: ,.,.'. '",,. , l - • '<<? <': LL...c...:.._ _ _~ _ (/ .1 - 4 - In tne second ground r1r, M.tamb~ contends tha.t tht?- trial · judge grossly misdirected himself on the evidence in finding tha.t the appellant had. rlceived a bribe, and that that provided a motive ~or ~is wanting to kill ·P.w:s, This COIDj_)la,int, however, is compl~tely unjustified beca.use there wa.s overwhelmin;:: evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.7 to the effect tha.t the appellant received Shs~ 1,000/- a·.s a bribe. The evidence further shows that the ,I appellant was cha.rged in the District Court with corruptly \ receiv:ing tha.t a.mount but was acq_uitted, a.nd so Mr, ifJramba contended tha.t the a.llegation of corruption in the present proceedmgs had no sul:>stance and hence there was nothing to provide motive for the a.llegeci atter,1pt by the appellant to kill P .w .5 • To tha,t we can only say tha.t it all depends on wh{3,t evidence wa.s adduced before the D:i.~trict Court, and hew tha.t court e.ssessed such evidence. We cannot form any opinion on the matter because the record of tha.t case is not before us. However 9 we a.re Sii!,tisfied on the evidence which :is before us in this case tha.t the learned judge wa.s perfectly entitled to find that the a.ppellant \. corruptly received Shs •. 1,000/- and tha.t on rea.lising that he had· been found out by P,W.5, and bee.ring in mind the possible consequences thereof he sought to shoot P.W.5. In ground three Hr. Nramba, a.tta.cked. the trial judge for findin;_; that the cqntra.dictions in the prosecution case were minor and tha.:t they did not cast any doubt on the prosecution oase. We ha.ve carefully examined the contra.dictions which counsel refers to, and we are in entire agreement with the _trial_ judge tho.t they did go to the root of the matter and therefore they oa.nnot ha.ve e8.$t any reasonable doubt on the prosecution ca,se, ••..... /5. /', I ' - 5 - And la.stly Mr. llra.mba. contended tha.t in the light of his earlier s\l.brnissions in this ca.se, the tria.l judge ought to have a.ccepted the a.ppellant•s defence a.s being true. For the rea,sons given in the preceding pa.ra.gra.phs, we a.re una.ble to a.oceed to this I view. Perhaps we could ma.ke one further ·obse.i.'Va.tionj and that is this: If it is true tha.t the appellant merely fired in the air to sea.re off P. W.5 who wanted to disa.rm him 9 one would expect that a.fter doing so the a.ppellant would then ta.lee steps aga.inst P .w .5 for obstructing or interfering with him in the laMful execution of his police duties, and ~lso against the owner of the flour for \ flouting his order to off-loa.d the flour froin the bus. It is somewha.t strange, however, tha.t he did. not do so 9 and tha.t instea.d he merely reported a.t the police sta.tion to ha.ve fired a shot .ill the a.ir to sea.re off a person who wanted to disarm him a.fter which he went about his norna.l duties~ In a.11 the cireumstances we can fjnd no ground for faulting the trial judge. We a.re satisfied tha.t the appeal has no merit and it is accordingly dismissed in its entirety. --..:-~ /;1JA>f.£ ~~A th~ 11th dey of September, 1986. (; ' '~\ ,7 \ . .. } I • ·~ :·.;-. \ ,', . ,..) \ I I'; •, 0 . i:, L. r-I. NAKAME 1 .v ,_ . ,;.:• / JUSTICJ:: OF APPEAL \;.- ./y / , ·y·' , -.t.;,, ../.'---_,,,~ . ·- ,-:f,, - 1;_;;;;,;,,,- t. .. .. .• • • ' • ~- ....... R. H. IITSANGA 4 • .rl[,,'?TICE .OF APPEAL _. .• f . " . .J' ,. . , '· . ""·----... 1 . " •: ·1 :_ ,.. ' , Ir,"' , ',.,• t,{ ~ , ,'<· ~~\ ,,.._, \ .A. M. A.. •OHAR··· ... '- . iJI§llQJl1_0F APPEA:y, • I I -~ ' \ <I L- ~~ , ... -t .I certify tha'.t this ia a. true copy of the origin,al • j~ -~~:' 6'' • 4 ~). -~ ,/ -l: -~ ,I :~...,.II ;. · .• 2U~ \ ~- '.,.,I, / 7 ~•:')/ . \!, ~.,. ., .... _\.- ' -- - . ··./· ,, ,, •. .' . (J. !f•. MSOF.FE) _ DEwt( lfEJ§~ •. "'--·_,,;:- /