19921130 TZHC Dar es Salaam

... ) Vd."'SUS '.i?he appGUant, '.iW3Ii..3 G;Wl.,~~~G:,E. '.tu2ft, is a carpenter. 'fhe responc.;ont, li.11'.wcl.:'~~1 0Pti.i.i1Y, is his nei13hbour who had ant~r0c1 into an n3r.a0m0nt •,1i th him for the na!tin~ of two cupboards for n. total cost of shs.6000/-.. The :responcfont made a down payment ot allo.4500/- to the llj_)pellant, the b.:!lanee of nhs.1500/-:- to be paicl on completion.. 'l'his was on 2.1.38e i~ nucbell' of months passed but the appel~ant had no cupboarc)s to eiv,;) to the r~spondent. So on 2.10.89 the nppeUnnt unr1ertook in ·,1ri tin~ to· conpfote the t1oi-k and honcl over the cupboads io thG r~spondent by .25.10.09. The appallant a13ain def.::lul tea nnc'; so on 15.3.90 th-a respondent f ilec': his suit in the ::::rimnry C:ourt of '.Iimru:ibn elni □ ing two cupboards or en.sh shse 10,000/- fror~ the appcUant. The 1"Jrirn,:u"y Court of lti□ar.iba after heo.rine the evidence. on both Bide::. foun,:l the.i it t1as the respondent who :.ins to blame for the delay in conpletion of tho cupboards nncl rule<l that the responuent shoulu bG rGfun<lec.1 only sha.~500/- he hn<l paid to-the appellant rls n down paynent. 'the iresponclent was acgri_evoo by this decision anc.1 appealed to tbe ;Jintrict C:ourt of Kilosn. ln his rn~rnorandurn ot appeal to the district court the.r~spon.dant, who we.s the appellant in the district court, qu0s~iooe<l the justifi- cation for

orc1orins that he be refunded his shs.1-000/- (the correct acount was 4500/-) whUo he had paicl the money in 1908 and the . -- --- vnlua of money- hns fallen ovor tha yearn. Je saicl nothing about the findin3 of tn~ trial ~ ~hat he. was th.a on~ to b ~ for ttha.t.hnd hapi;,enoa. not decl.l wi ih the iGmliGS rais:~r;_ in thr case o · Inst.Gc,d. h:;; purported to r~concHe the pnrtios an& r.m6.ed tal) w_ith n juc.13D1ent which purports to record a cons-Jnt or(!or foHowii.13 a 0 :rree□ent reached by the parties., i'he nllccecl ncr-~er.mnt is to the cf.feet thnt the appellant TobiM Tupa should. m.:tl.,e the tMo cupboards as oiricinnJlly aGl'eed bet~rnen hir.1 nnc1 t:"h,J rc.aponJ.ent nn.:1 thathe should be ready to· hand thern over to the r,,S;)on:':ont on 2D .. 4.,9t. The two cupboards were to . . be made oi 11 1:minGn: with three r~r.:tum.rs each. 1 The nppellant in this nppeal □nintnins tb:::it no such ncr0emGnt 1.1c,s :renchec.1 bet·,;reen him and the r.esponJent 1:nd thci.t it wna only tho presiding magistrate who was trying to ir:i~.lOG·~ hi/3 wiU on. the part:n.os wi_thout til0ir consent. 'ihis clai□ by the nppe:Uant seemo to derive support from the court li"•.=cord of tho proceo'.:inr:;s nt the henri~e of the · appeal. If inc1oec1 tho parties hnd renched ae;rcer.1ent ns alleged it· was the duty of the pr,asic:Un~ mn.3istrnt0 to :rreco:rrc: what ench of the parties had said

·in rGlo.tion to tho t{~n.1s of the alleged settlement· so that there woulcl be no (1ispi.rt0 no to what had t:rr'.'m.apired$ 1.s it happened the lenrned DiGtrict Encicrcrnte t'o recor~ of ~-,h~t was said by the parties does not r,.:n:lect t~v? settlement thn~.; i"!is ju~1grnent sc.ys wna reached by the pa.rtfos~... T:10 Jr.Jco:rrc of appeal reads aa follows: Coary Ejibu rufon ~~obic.o Tupa yupo. Ekntn rufaa :maefoza ]i:::·1,::::ribn tul:Fmb~l~.:.na kwm'Jba aniten513n0z0e kab~ti 2 zenyc c1r-~"l.w tatu k;ra. rsti ,m ::mingn.. 1-~jibu rufaa nnnefoza !r-..·rn□bn niJLi□tengcnozea lakini alikatc\a kaba-:;i :,dzo.," Below this entry is tho jr.e/:c;□ent in uL'.ich the lernrne ·: Di.strict ffiae;ist:i:-.:.t0 s~ys I int.al!' alia :- 11 Mbefo ynnC:>-U r.;jibu rufc-'.:l na r.i.l:l::atn rufna wamckubaliruia 1~•,:rrunba kni:lnti hizo nbiJl.i ziwe zir.ietenc;cnczwa kwa nti huo hal:i tm·eh;; 20/4/91~ 1,·:al:.'.l..l.c.:ir::;3. hii iliimbaliana na rnaoni hayo 1 k9r$lbG. r.:jibu rtti'aa a,ot(me;onczce mkata · 'l v \.:Jith due :r·z.spcc.t to t~10 foc:;rnoc1 Jistrict EngiGtrnte ~-1nc.t ho says in his, juc1:-:;1:1ent is not !Jo.:-no out by ti.1G rcco:rao 7o tho e:>..-tent that he Jiu not record ,,;,imctly uh~t wna said by each party he was in error and now tho~.:; tho np~JG!lant d0,1ies to b'.:'-vc :roached any s~ttlet10nt with tbe rosponc.~mt o o:,rious doubt hon30 over what h.acl actuaUy

trnnspiroci at the hcE:irin:j o:f the appcml 0 J:.ccorclinc; to the appcU.ont tho· M.::.3i.st1~ate wen r.10r0ly i.r.1posinG his wiH on him by insistine thct the reo7.)on1.font r.1w:;t bG c;iv,,m th6 t,m cupbparcls and no-t- a refuna of his shoo~l:.-00/- a.s o:rcierrac1 :"Jy the i?rir:lary Cour.te In VIQ.-1 of th~ r0cord on0 can :.11nrc1ly deny th,-:i.t this io what hnd actually trans1)ircc1,. I have conciciered :1h,,/;hor in view of· whnt hno happened I should order tho appeal to be h0~:rc Qfresh before .anoth~r ~agistrotc~ I find it unnecessary to do ao sin.cc '\'!hnt rcnUy oattcr/3. is i1hether. or not · thG trial court wns jrn::t'iffo::1 in holt1ine that the respondent, Maoh-. Or.1ary 1 1mo the ono t0 bl.::rr.c for th.J faHurG of tbe cppcllant to aietha»ge his part of tho bm\:,'.:in;:, '.i..'hi.s can ba c'1.one by this court by looking at the evidence on roco:rd., Lccordin::; to the ap;;,,:;,llant c.fte:r ti'.10 ngrc<Jfilcnt of January 1908 he procured ti □b0r lor uso in t:10 t1akin3 of the re$pondent 1 s cupboaPas in February 19(30 but tho ir.:n:;pon:.}:mt rcjectcc1 them as beine: unsuitable, Then in JunG or J ly 1.900 ihe c1pp0Hant procured timber which the ':.l respondent foun,J e.cceptc.bleo 'i'ho reopon,:S,mt them 0avc the appcllallt glue which he iwulc1 11.se in joinin.c; to:::;ether the pioces o:f tim'b0r. ?he appeHant then proceodou to apply t:.e !J.li.UG nnc1 join

the piec~s of tj,tlbQf and clanp tb.00 to30th0ro 'I'b.c: np;,,)-.:llant 11,::dtG:i for three Jays for the timb0r joints to. hm-cen ~)roperlyo Jnon th0 NG~)on,'Jen.t visited the appellant h<.3 cooplnin0c1 i~v1t t:10 a:)p3Unnt hat Gold the r;oocl tir.2bijJ"· hG had. SGGn three dayo pr.3vioui:;ly nnd th;;-,t the tinbcr now left, for the joint::; to hatclen ic of inf,:-rior- qunlity. the cupboards.the rGsponcont rofusad to take d~livery and dooand0d hf.s raoney back.. The respon~ent -:ler::anc1ec1 that he be pnic1 GllGoGOOO/- tnsteac! ·,,. j V \) of shs. 4500/-. Jh0:1 thio t1isurn.i..:rstanJin5 finally rGacnec:1 the palicG the renpondcmt clai1::oc'! shoo13500/- refund boinct three tir.11~s. the or~eino.l smJ of oli.S,,<;500/-~ This testir.1ony by th0 app0H~nt uc.o not chaUengod by tho ·respondent in crosa-o}mr.iinntionc . :Jh.ifo pir0oentine hi_s caoo the respon,:}ont nadc no □ -antion of tho fnct that the appellant hac1 solc.1 the c;ooc1 .timber he ho.c1 approved nnd replaced it ,1itn low quality timber. Ifo C:id not ca:U any witnesses to support the. alloention. 'i'huo one can only concluc1e that the :rrcopondent was orui:ine um•easonable cleman<ls on th0 appellant and. ma.kine baseless . . alJ.ccratioM which he coulc~ not prove. It follows that· the trial court was justific<l in ooncludin5 that the r0spondeni waa to blnce for th0 c:elay ancl c1ue to his unronsonablo ~ernands'~

he cannot recovar core than what ha hac1 paic.1 to the appellant in 1900. In the final result this appGal succeac1s and I allow it with coGts. The nppellant ts to pay back to the respondent ohs.4500/- as orclercc by tI1e P:rrinary Court,, Delivered in char:1bcrs at Eoro 0 oro this 30th day of Hovember 1992 in the· prasenc0 of: TCJBI1~3 'I'U?il ni~p0Uant in person I,~ . .:JJii.Ki~. Oki.i:U respondent in parr-,on. 'J0/11/W92 ..