19911030 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Citation
- 19911030 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 30 October 1991
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Second Appellate Judgment
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 30 October 1991
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Second Appellate Judgment
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The primary court had jurisdiction to try the matter under the applicable customary law, which recognizes the tort and compensation for destruction of crops. However, the courts below failed to provide a basis for the assessment of damages, making the compensation awarded excessive and unsupported by evidence.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Compensation order for destroyed crops stands
- Each party to bear their own costs
02
Material facts
Parties
Selmani Kitawi
AppellantPius Galashani
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Compensation Awarded for Destroyed Crops: TZS 25,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appellate Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the primary court had jurisdiction to try a tort claim between parties from different communities under customary law
- 02
Whether the assessment and award of compensation for destroyed crops was justified and supported by evidence
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The primary court lacked jurisdiction as the litigants belonged to different communities (appellant is a Msai, respondent is a Dobea); there was no material on record to show how the compensation amount was arrived at.
- Respondent
- The appellant's cattle strayed into the respondent's paddy field and destroyed the crop; compensation was due for the destroyed crops under customary law.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Cases of Juma Seif v. Jacob Emmanuel (1960) E.A.D. 407; Mfinanga Addamati v. Salum Soud (1979) LRT No. 4
Customary law recognizes the tort of destruction of crops and allows for compensation equivalent to the value of the destroyed crops.
- 02
Section 2 of the Fourth Schedule to the Magistrates' Courts Act
In the exercise of its customary law jurisdiction, a primary court shall apply the customary law prevailing within its local jurisdiction or, if more than one, the law applicable in the area where the cause of action arose, unless satisfied that another customary law is applicable.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The primary court had jurisdiction to try the matter under the applicable customary law, which recognizes the tort and compensation for destruction of crops. However, the courts below failed to provide a basis for the assessment of damages, making the compensation awarded excessive and unsupported by evidence.
Obiter and limits
- It is always important that the trial court assesses as best as it can what it considers to be adequate compensation for the loss suffered by the plaintiff, and the scale of assessment should form part of the record.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
- Compensation order for destroyed crops stands
- Each party to bear their own costs
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 30 October 1991
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· 30 October 1991
IlT irm: mer.I COu1lT OF TAHZl'JJIA AT Dlill ES SAL!i.Ali (PC) CIVIL lll'PEf\.L HO. 75 OF 1990 SELNrol ICTJii.JI APPELLli.liT versus PIUS Gl'i.Ll-1.SHJI • .......... , •• -. o • • • • RESf'a. DLHT JUDGlr:JiT iJ.his is a.11 a,ppoo,1 riga.inst ~c c1.ocision of tho lk:.:ocoro District Court which uphelt1. i:10 c1.eoision of the Hvo;·11cro P-J:.'iraD.rY Court in a suit of comr,oso- tion for c~;1~e to oropa,. llho trial Frir;'lal:y Court haL1. vJ.l01rct1. an a~1ar<1 for ooraposo:tion_ for c.1.oot:rilotion of p~kl.y' un<.lcir custornn.ry lat·T# Tho oo.J.iont taote i.i1 this r.mttor ::ire f.s follctrsi ~o rcisponc.:cnt,: ·tr• GALASIAW, hai:\ euooossfully insti tutc,1 prOO'ccclin:1'6 aei.inst :,~lo e,.ppcllant', 3ALITUI KIJJw.[1 c1.o:uang C')i.pcsn:~ion for t:ic clostruction of his po.ddy crop• · It wos assortoc1 1zy" tho rosponcl011t t:io.t tho appollont 1s oii.ttlc hru.1. strayoC.. into h,is pac.1.L\jr fiol(l ancl erazcd on it c"'.. ostroyinc hie pw:.:.uy-., ·. .,. Tho trial P.ctiu&-y Cour·t wc.,,s sc1tisfiod. thn:t it .\nt1. jurisdiotion in this typo of torlous liability -prcauacbly wi t:.un t!1c phrc.so 1'oustoi:1oxy la:w" under SCOjiiion lD(l) c~) of "&lo Hncistre:tos Cot:rtn Act, 19D4. Tho trial oolll':1;' 1-re..3 sn;iti.sficu. that '.,i;hc ~ppollnilt 1 s 'oa.t·~lc haL1. ~zoLl 011 his shonba anc1 lLCStroycd pcldcy whoso vn.luc i·rn.s cstimn.tcd M s!lS.25,000/....
The £oromon:tio11ccl ·st:i."1 of raoncy e.n coTJi)cso.".;ion for the clcstroyoc1. ~op. This docisiori uas uphold by the Moroco:i:o Dist-net Cour·u• . . raisocl tlrn crom1ci.s which arc wor~1 oo:1oil~c:ri::.:~ ::'-:1 h:i..n first cround lio asscrtod tho:~ tlic txiol Frinaxy Cou:i:-t ta.cl no jutisdiction to 'tx-y the suit boonuso the li tic,-o.nts bolon~cc.1. to dif'f'orcnt coi.lrrluni tics; no..,oly the appollo.nt is o, lbsni uhcrons the rospont1.cnt is c, Dohcya. !),OW Ilo fur"i;;.ior subr.li ttcd that tlloro in no ~tortal 011 record to -show,L~~<! caom:-; arrived o.t t:ic ;:,;1orcl as oomponso.tion for the tlcs.,Gl.'oyccl c:rop. 'i'!l.e ..,nt~ti~:::i ··· pro;i, of t!ic rcoorc'.t In roforroc.l the court ·to tho c:ccisioa i~1. fT.ITGi]YA CTIILEMA. (1972) :.::c:o 14 193. I mu.st oo;ri'css tl1.at the poi~1"'1is of ln.-H raioocl by l'li'. rL.,sn:'lii ha.s cnusocl oonsiclcrn.blo oonccrn DJ.1d. ru.1:l:iotJ i:1 ac., Tic.,VinG :10110 ·th.:rou{}.l Ji;::.10 rccorclz of both courts ~Jclou ft is ru:1p1J,· clear ·ttmt none of tl1.oso cov..rfa n.cll'.roosccl thomaclvos ·to ~10 question of jltcia.'icJliion cnc1. :.--;o ·i;o w:.2ic>.. o~:s'iio:J::i.ry law h o.ppliablo, The fir-st point t;.:r:'li Jitlo court hri.s to consi2.or DJ.tel clcoic.lo io ifltcthcr tho tort of cl..ostruotion o:Z t~o p;:u:.cy is :r;ccoe,11:i.-socl llill'.01' cusJGoan.r~~ law. Rrom a. cou.plo of decisions by Jlihis couxt
custor.1r.J:y lau rocoorl.sos this tort a11cl furt.:ior rcoo(,"ni;cs ~i:1ont of clc..,1n..;cs for tJ.:.c tort ·i;o the. 'c.t:~1¼ ot oompQna~tion· to tc..c value of ·i;hc crops clcstroy0<.le This cou.rt appcl'..l's to lll1.vo hQld· tJ.at vimr in tho ca.acs of JI~ S(,1:Zf.A v. JAC_QP...:cr:~~lLE.. (1960) :."::CD ~ 407 ~ Iij)lllfJI ·ADDAL!Ji!T_ r, ,341;u;u s-0T,q1•. (1979) 1 .. n,T. n. 4.. IIo;vi11G rccn;r:cl to the fo:rceoi11...:-;,· I ~1ow turn Ji;o tho nc:::J.; (J.l?tostion which ia nhioh custo,-a._1;1:y lCJ-r is applicr..blo. It is com.uon c-roui1L'i__ t~J..:,,t tho a.ppcllr;1t is ~ Mo.sci 1(1<µ<ons ·llic 1,oopo11c.cnt is a Jcl1eyae ,It is 110lt so·ttlocl l~-r that whoro o.s in •(;his OD.SC the Frir:lnr".f Court in :f'c.cccl with 'nn in•l;c:rncl conflid; si tuo.tion, it shou.lcl make its choioo of l.:M i11 oocorti_o,1100 lri th provisions of section 2 of t::lo i'outh schoc.lulo to tho Hnu~strc.tcs •·. Courts Aot whioh prov.idcss· "Il1 t:.10 a::o:roisc of it's_ cusfonn.ry b.H jurisu.iction n. priDr..rJ court shall. appzy tho oustor:in.ry lo.w 1)I:c.~,l;ing within the,__ Q;r_o,aof' i -~s local jurisdiction or i i ·li:1.crc is r:toro t:.itin one _such lo:w, t.'.:c l2.1r o..pplion.blc in tho orca in u1rl.cl: ~.10 c..ct, t:rro1:::,:,.0J1iio11 o:r· r:ia.ttor occmrocl or nxosc unloos it is satis~icll -t~:i.e:;l:i soi.10 other OL!Sto;:mry lrM is applicr:.blo, ~ i ; · i·t shnll, mbjcct
to_ ·t;J.1.,0, r~t,;Lop of courj;, a.1),12,~: .t;t10 custoaa.r;,r ,.lciv l~I',o;vrJ._lj.1¥~ wi ~hin . tac 9iQp. of ,i.~_)ocoJ. jurisrlicJ~io11:, ,iJl i,mt:.,ccr_s of prn,c·i;ioo, ppc.\ J2.roccc.lurc to . ~q ~OJ\.~.! . . . ~!l ot~cr CUS~i.io:-:in.Jlz . lc;r," (-tho c:-.1phasis is Lti.110) In tho il1sJliri:.1-t cr..sc t:.iorc is ao inc.1icri,tio11 which cusiioi.ltl.TY lnlf both -•. tho tricl prii.1..--._;cy aottrJli micl tl:c first appcllcnt court r,ppliocl. Evan if I tl2ll to OSGl'!nO -'-i:a:t t:.10 tr·ial · pri:.1c.:i.:i~. court ri..ppliocl the Cl1.S"~or.1~J law . provoilil'lG 1ri t.:.iin Ji.he looe,J. cou;rJim of the jurisdiction of Jiili.c Mvo11cro l"rino;ry Court; ·bllo orc.1.or for J~1.c ti,;;·Tr.J:u. of cor.1pcnso.tion cr.11 not ho :roc;nrc.i.ccl 0.0 'the cui;r',or.1~y l::ll-1' prcw,ilinc; 1-ri -chin tllc loccl li,.1i -~s o-Z ·i:.::i_c ju~tsclictio;:1 of tho Mv.ouo:ro Pr_ir.'4.".X".f Cotn't. i I- . i.~.'jl::,. 7~ ...::.......:1j,,::~1~:( __ , .. - , •.. ~ - · ~ . ' · .... -~.4.•. ,.., :c Doth "llic cVi"lm.100 r..nJ. the juc''.-(;t.1<:mt of "me tricl Pri1.1c:J.""iJ Col.U't (i.o not· gi vo ~~ oluo ~ to how the c1Jovc fic,u.ros were crri vcd r.:t. :'.::ow the court o.tTiVod o.t the cs·tL.1e.tions is, "i;o scg the lcc..st, bcyonc1. r:w oo::'.lprcho11sio11+ It 1rc.,s obsortccl in MifLJVYA 'S on.so (sui~rc.) tlw.,t "in so;:ic oc..soa it nt'Ji' 1Jo difficult to c.sscss tho
tu:10w.1t of cle;-:io.,.::;ca peya.blc to c :plni:.r'i;if-t but it :i.s nl.trcys ir.ipor-iicnt "Gl.1a.t the "t.ricl col..U"t r,sscsscs o.a best c..s it oc..n uhr,t it oonsidcra. to bo ~ ~doqu.cto VCOOi:1;>oso for tho loss sui'f°orccl ·by "i;.!10 l)lcintifi' D.itc.l the o.cx.lo of. c,asoss,.1cnt ahoulu. xo:i:,:1 pn;rt of tho rcco:n1.." I fully nml roepootfull.Y' ~oribo to the fo~ci".1c:.1tionccl view~. It is rcthor mtl'OTtwic..tc t.hc:li '.hll.O Distric"li Court in its c.p1)01lc.to jurisdiction 1~ooocd.od to henr c:nc.1 c1otarrti.no t.hc ~ppoc.l on ~c .scr10 prcn±sa. It tiey not bl\ oc,sy for this court boi113 the ,scco11q. t!,ppcll~to court to d.qtci- t ru.no whotho:r tho 0)-Tc.!'dod ru:ioun.ts ha oor.1pcnon-tioh n.r.c cr;:cosoi vo. or othc.:ndoo. It hc.s hotrcY01', boon m.10011-'cr~f:4 tho..t thc rcspd11(~c.11t's sh°'-:ioo tlin.t 0 was dovn.stoc.l by -~ho D:ppollc.i1t 's boC'..Gts Wtl,s 3 Mrcs. rr,io .t.LlOILlt of w-25,.000/"'.' ,,. .. .:i.wd.rdoc.l ~ cou1)01~.sc..tion for the c.1.r.wC(;ccl crops is in t\V hu...,1blo vim13.!10 wcy aitooossivc if' one tckoa into ccinsid.orr-,:liion the na.rl,tct Ptioo 9f poocy per b6c which .we.a ost:i;:u-,tcd c.t shs.150/=:= per kilo• In the li(jli; of tho forccoinc I hos:i:ta.tc to cliswb -~:i.t order for g,, ,; ooopcnsa...tion Cllc..rLloc.l by both oOUl'ts holon-. In tho cYcnt this 'ti,ppccl. fcils. Pro:tics to boor their oitn cof3ts. DELiv"'ERKO in 0!1c,mbcrs this 30-'Gh cley of Octobor 1991 n.t I40R0G0R0 in tho prosdnoc of rcs:,onclcnt vtho is pres.ant in. J)Cl'oon. -Tho ·.;:.ppollc.i~t ., I Tho Cl)l)al,l~1t•a· oow1sol .is c.JJs911t··- (Itis presence W['Jl .(lj:OUSccl).
JUDGE 20/10/91· O+jD;§gt 'lll.o Deputy RcC;-istro..r to 110-ti.fy the t>.pppl1Z1.~1t 's .,Q01;U'lf3Qi of -the ou.toorao of C'J)l)Ccl.•
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.