19760921 TZHC Mwanza

(ru) aiviij A:IE.L JO. '282 Oi 1975 (Prom thQ decision of thu District Cøurt of :iusoma at Eiuoma ii Clvii Application No 3 of 1975 - Before: J. . I&missi, Lsq. Rojc3ent Jia.jstrate & Original Urban Court Iusoma Civil Case No. 164/74) TvlV'IANAIDI S.n.G'I . • . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPELL.NT ZEITA RTJPTJ1BO • • • * • . . . . . . . , . , , . .1U.SPOIDUUT 3 U D G.. E 1.10 N T UGA The appellant sued the respondent in Urban Prii± - ry Court I.Iusom for what amounts to dissolution of paitnershi nne sharing of profits occred as a result ofa partnership business. The trial court gave judent in her favour. The respondent appealed against the trial court's decision to the District Court but her appeal was dismissed. Still being dissatisfied, he had appealed to this court. it was sufficiently proved that the parties to the suit entered into some business arrangement whorcr each ofthon contributed Shs 500/= toward the running of a beer store. A trading licence was obtained in the appellant's name and after the business had been going on for aix months they divided the p±'ofits'ach of then got Shs. 270/ as her share of the profits It was after this that a dispute arose between then and the rcsponc1ent''ecided to pull out of the arrangement. The only issue on appeal was whether the trial court had jurisdiction tc entertain the suit. In her memorandum of appeal to the first appe1iat court the appellant submitted that the trial court had no juriôdict.ion to entertain the suit since it was esed on partnership. The first appellate court held that although the arrangement was of the nature of a partnerbhlp the issue did not merit any consideration because it was not raised in the trial court. It therefore 'dismissed the appeal. The same ground is the basis of this appeal. Although the nature of the arrangement between the parties to the suit and the subsequent sharing of the profite is evidence of existance of a partnership arrangement, that alone did not direct the primary court of jurisdiction to entè±tain the suit.. As rightly remarked by the appellate magistrate thus wd6 a simple arrangement, although of the nature of a partnership, between simple dOwn dwellers The capital for the trading arrangement was minimal. There was therefore notIing complicated about it t'itke determination on the issues difficult. In fact the issues' inVOlved Were all matters of fact which the trial court properlr' ajuicted on. Thus even if it is hold that the arrangement was a 'partnership it cannot be said that any of the parties, particularly the appellant, was pejudiced by the determination of the suit by the primary court'. Siricethe findings of fact cannot be faulted this appeal cannot suceed. The decisions of the lower courts are upheld and this appeal is dismissed with costs. MVh.NZ A. J.. B. A JTJTJ.E 21ST DAY O1' CiPT.LIB2., 1976.