19830511 TZHC Mbeya
The court found the respondent's evidence weightier and proved the claim on a balance of probabilities, upholding the lower courts' findings.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19830511 TZHC Mbeya
- Parties
- Appellant: Sarina s/a Nwasonya; Respondent: Asporo Mwaipaja
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 11 May 1983
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Verbal Agreements, Work and Labour Done, Payment Disputes
- 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
Sarina s/a Nwasonya
Appellant
Asporo Mwaipaja
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent was entitled to payment for work and hire of saw under verbal agreements
- 2 Whether the appellant had already paid the amounts claimed
Ratio Decidendi
The court found the respondent's evidence weightier and proved the claim on a balance of probabilities, upholding the lower courts' findings.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appellant to pay respondent Shs. 785/=
- Appellant to pay costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
?/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF TllidU1. AT im :Yi CIVIL APIPJLI NO. 25 OR 19 5 1 SflRINA s/a Nw;SOi'rYi' 00000000000O0 0 .. APPELLIdT versus hSPOROS/OMWLIPLJA 0 0 0 0 0000 0...000000000000.REsPONDET JUDGLT Claim Shs.. '7851= for work done. Nasoko Prinarr Court, Wi tnes od the responc at Aspro Mwaipaja successfully suing the appellant Tuntilo aliao Similina Mwasonya, for shs.- 785/= for work, or, labour invostod. t in sawing planks for the latter. The appellant' sap cal to the District, was dismissed, and hence his further appeal to this court The respondent, c1ined. to have :.iad.e two vcrbal agTeemen -ts, with the tppeilant one for the sawing olanks. According to his evidence, suportec1 by Eizekitel TTi4cmbipile Ulie'first thirty p1ank 2"x 4" were sawed, at an aood charge of shs47/= per planl: - hence shs. 210/=. Second, fifty—five planks of 2 " x 611 9 wore also sawed at- a mutually aeed charge of shs. io/= per Dlank, and hence shs. 555/=. The 2nd verbal a-eement was for the repondcnt to hire his saw and did to., the appellant at the rate of cbs 9 51= D er day for sixty days and hence the claim of shs. 300/= The rocrorent adnitted to have been paid shs. 300/= only. In the face of thc, above evidence 9 the appellant conceded, that th?. respondent only sawed 13 planks of 2" x 411 at shs. 71=, and 7 planks of 2" x 6" a shs. 9/=, which total amount came to shs. 334/=9 which amount, he claimed to have paid to the respondent. As respects - the 2nd aeeuen±, the appellant denied the deal, and brought his child Th13 Ezekiel, to hit home, the point that he (Thi3) did give a saw to Pu. Unfortunately, the evidence of D\13 Uzekiel is of no assistance, as it does not even say whother, if the saw was ever given to Pul, through the appellan -t'o initiative, the said saw was ever used by the rospondent. Exekiel (boos not oven say whether there was any agreement regarding the saw. ThJ2 i3osikago' s evidence, was even emptier, as he did confess that, he did not even know, how many planks wore s:wod. TI 4 —2 - Considering the evidence :enera11y I consider, that, the lower courta9 were right in finding the respondents weightier, and proving the claim on a balance of probabilities, and I. aoe with them. The appellant has to pay the respondent ohs, 71=, as rightly found by the District Courts with costs. This appeal is therefore dismiseod with costs. Delivered this 11th day of ilay, 1983. b, X! Katiti JU )CE COIJRT Parties absent.