19860414 TZHC Mwanza
The District Court's finding was upheld as there was sufficient evidence supporting the respondent's claim that the appellant's dog caused the injury.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19860414 TZHC Mwanza
- Parties
- Respondent: Nyachota s/o Tujuti; Appellant: Unnamed appellant (defendant in Kiagata Primary Court)
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 14 April 1986
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Damages, Liability for Animal Acts
- 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
Nyachota s/o Tujuti
Respondent
Unnamed appellant (defendant in Kiagata Primary Court)
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant was liable for damages caused by a dog bite to the respondent's grandchild
Ratio Decidendi
The District Court's finding was upheld as there was sufficient evidence supporting the respondent's claim that the appellant's dog caused the injury.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- appeal dismissed with costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN T:::iE ':~.IGii CCURT OF T ANZANI.A AT M;,,IMJZA. (. C.) Hlr:c:. COtJF.T CIVIL Af- PEAL J'iO. 28 OF' 198,t (From the decisioh of ihe Distrioi CoQrt of Mus~ma in Civil Appe1l 3J. 23 of 1983. - Oti~inai Kiagata Primary Court Civil C~s0 N0. 42 of 1982)1 Vl.RSUS NYACHOTA g,/o TlJJ?JlTI 0 (', 0 0 e O O C. 0 0 •• 0 0 • C 0. 0 0 0, ft • e e 0 RE5POND1-NT The apPtillint -;;,=ts tLe defendant in Ki,a.n;ata I'rimar;si Court. The respondent sued him f, J.' recc1very of Shs. 2 1 oo'@/- dam:i~es. ?er case was that the a pf ell in'.;' fl doc bit her grand child and injured it.;·; She called three witness:--8 who supported her story. The appellant denied that the doe; which in;j o.red the child was his but called n0 wit ttesses. The trial Court dismis □ ed the claim. She appealed to the District Court and won. in tnr,:i tl-J.e ar,pellant brog.i;i;ht this :ippeul ■ I have goni: thr1mr:.·., the evidence bef'Gre the. trial Court and am inclined to a":re0 tJi.·cl1 the District Court. There ,,as enough eVi-'- dence to support the respnndent' s claim. The :::r,r;eal is dismisre.d with costs. /· "'·,. I J. j i1l Fl • ! (·! F. A. Witriffi.4 JUDGE.