19891006 TZHC Dar es Salaam

Jf:Hb ~~:H1' ,.~,~~ ) ;-i.'l' l.,J·U. L!:> bHL11.,,M i'Co ClViL i-dri:a,l. Nv.78 GF 1987 USIGGvi:-.c.; 'l'Ul-tt. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • o • o o O O O O O onl:l:LLL,.;NT ver·sus lialJibH i>iv}ii.1"11,l.). 0 0. 0 0. 0 n O •• 0. 0 0 •• r{.Gb:i:vN1.,.G~T JD1.,GN.l.',I~'I- DblvGL-~£ TD~h successfully suect hhbl~t kLHhML0 ut the Du~uruni ~rimury Cuurt~ llulu uistrict, cluiminG GWn~rshi~ of~ house situLte~ at Chauika villuce, Ilulu uistrict. H~1iLa M0ham~tl successflly a~~~ .l~J tc thb -~istrict Cuurt of llalu i.,istrict. Usi0iope Tupa has nGw c~~~~1~( t e, this c L- urt. 'l'he trial ccurt founJ estnLlish8a th~t the a~vellunt haC nske~ ... l, ...... . v r0s~0nJent tc scout ror hi@ a plot ~t Chnniku villaGe ■ This havillL been ~~no, th~ a~pdllant iurchbseu the located ~let at T.Shs.2,5OO/=. t'he trial CL.Urt furtht!r f_,urh estu.ulishe<.l tl:11:. t 'the o."i,]Jellant had ~c.L. for the c0nstruction 0f the h~use which.when com~leted was occu~i~: by the resp,ntlent with the cunsent 0f the appellant. h~pellont wcs then livinG in ccncubinuce with the ~esv0ndent's dauchter. Un the Lr~akins Juwn uf this assuciation, the n~JJellant GSked the res1-cnJent t(,• vacati::: his h,,use. 'rhe res1,·cnuent refused t0 d.v su clniminc own..,r-- shiJJ of the huuse. 0n the fucts f~und estaLlished by the trial court, the appellc~t wo.s fvU11L t L- Le: th0 lo.wful LMner c,f the J_.;lut 0n which tho::: suit ~romist::s wus loc~teu us well as the suit vremises. The res~untlant 0.1.,Feu.lutl. 'l'he first a1-,}:,E:i-J.ate c0urt stuted, inter alia, 11 •• • tht:: Ic~,r court's rec0rds critically ~ft~r ~0inG thr0uGh I e..:,cth;;;r thut tht:: leL:.rncCl trio.I rn..,;c;istrute hnJ .-ov.e·rlooked· s0me 0f the im1-,ort~nt ~uints. It is not cuntroverto:::d thut the res~untlent wus a buy frien~ of the a~~ellant's ;..;.c.:.uGhter the 1;W.2. lt w;:,.s ·thus usuetl fur the witness to rely un the res:vurn.lent accurn 1_,lish her J.esire tu let the a~~ellan; ac4uire th0 1-,lot un~ built the dis]Jut0tl huuse. 1 ~~.t sayinG is ~roved by tho::: fuct thut une of tho res~0nGent s 0wn withesscs wh0@ 1 call tho::: stu.r witness, (~Wo5), who s0la the plot t~ the resJJonuent ha~ this t0 s~y an~ I quote him v-::rbu.tim here in Swahili ".NC::.ipo alifikn mclni na mdv.iwc:.:. 1~1::.moja na mt0t0 wake h.:t.i:-:u mcic.;i alitoa fedhn shs.2,5OO/= na 11 kusema anuwanunulic. mcl'o.iwu. Kiwu.nja kwa ~ile ni mkwewe O O •. rh&t t~unslation lit~rnlly meuns in ~nGlish that b0th the 1'arties accompanied by the 1.,w.2 went to ~~-5 before wh0m • a o o o/2 <> ii . ....... - 2 - the res 1 vn~ent ~aiu shs. 2;5uu/= f~r the ~urchase of the }:,let suyin 0 he w&s ti0in~ s0 an behalf cf the D.J:.,1,ello.nt l,-=inc his i:10th1::r in law o }·inally, th~re is n d0cura0nt Jatec1 1st ~ecembcr, 1965 which has Leen annexea here tu ~nu sicned by the ven~or k~o5 evitlencinL the trunsnction of the said ~lot in the 1,"r0ser.ce c,f thG three .wi tn1=sses the vcnucr fur which is the a~ 1 elinnt. Un~t::r the circumst~nccs this c0urt dues nut support the · lower c 0urts findinE::o" k~. hchora, learned c~unsel fur the a~~ellant submitted th2t the first a1J}:,ellate c0urt seems to h1...ve reli<:?d on a dccur,1<::nt th£,t had been ~rouuced us un exhibit. lle furthur submitte~ th&t even when it wus 1aentiunec:. in evitlence, it ct:i,,l,ee,;.re<.l nut tu hctve U(;en sicned by the parties ]:.,resent at the sale tr~ns~cti0n. rhe ducument had no probr+iv~ vctluo. Mr. ~ut1...shoby& learned cuunsel for the resp0ndent submitted that the nuJitiunal c,r--unl, of u.:.;,.eul ,u1.:uecl Ly l'IJr. Nchora hod been fileu withuut the le~~e uf the court. lie went un tu challence the furmat of the a~.itional cruun~s uf D.J:.,}:,eul cs filed Ly the DJ:.,~eilant. hr~~ Nchor"' hcu.l fileu th0 crvuntls uf 0:.1.·i-·c<-<l in th0 ult&rnc.ttive; this f0rmat hrd rtutushoLya ar 0 u~d w~s im1,,r0ver. \..Jl1 rec.dine the recvrll uf the .t'roceetlin1.,,s c-ne is struck by the in~deyuate cunsiJeruti0n 0f the eviL.eDCd on record by buth the trial c0urt o.n~ th8 first appellate c~urt. lt is corr~ct thut the trial ccurt he:(; minutely uetuih:Cl thE:: ~viuence fur the 1-1lD..i..ntiff and the Liefenuunt tut there was r0ally no cvnstiious effort b.., &vo.lu;:;.te it a first 'i'hela:i..1,,cll3.te c0urt l.id not even both'"'r to C:;;;to.il tht:: purti01s co.s:::;-- · indeed in r~~~inG the ju~~ment, it is cle~rly shvwn that the leorncd fila 0 istr~te miscuntrued the evi~ence. It is this defect th~t m~kes this c0urt - sec0n~ ap~ellate court to re-evaluate the evi~enc~ on record. This ccurt w0ulG not have ~one so had the cuurts beluw . -~ o.rrivec1 o.t Cc•ncurrent finc.iini;s of fi..lct or. thGt hi:-,G. the fir.st llH_,ell.:::-- ·.0 1 court's findinGs of fo.ci been b~seG 0n evidence. ~n the exo.minati0n of th~ eviuence 1 ·the findings made Ly the trial court are fully justified. ~he evidence cf the res~ondent is c0ntratlict0ry, evasive o.nJ to a deLree su~~orts that of the a~~ellQnt? ixamine the eviuence of the resp0n~ent herself: Habiba Moho.med. It is extremely brief anu evasive. '.l'his E:,Vidence is contrE<uicteu 1;y tL,:: eviuence of ht:r duusht"'r l'·h1unuh.::;rtiisi huso." l"11r1.·.n~ht,misi t,1usa L;lks 0f the h,use h~vin~ Leen built in 1985 while she, Habibn Mohameu taJ.kc of it h~.vinL bc~n built in 1975. °lhe twu d0 not even D.!_:,ree on the cust of the builuin~, who h~~ ~aiw fa~ the plot on which the buil~inv - 3 - wc.s ];''lt, the histvry l-·f its "'c4uisiti0n, hc;w th<; cost c,f the plot w~s urriveu·~t. ~he ~etuil~d eviueuce vf Mw~naha~isi ~usa is also c0ntra--1.icted Ly ulrnost all the witnesses fur the u.·J,;iJellant in practically every res~ect. ~ven the witness (~W.5) that the first aVi~ellate c0urt haJ. f,..;unc, credible o.nu had culled "star witness" c0ntrnaicts the Jau 0 hter of the res~vndent an many ureas: how he hnd been cc.,nt1:.:.ct0d. uver the sole: JJlot, the uL,rJ;.inint; i,ro~ess fc r the ~l0t, the ~ayraent fer the sume &n~ who had maJe the i~yrnent. This being the case, I finJ the eviuence uf the res~unQent, "a£ibn Mvhamed and her duuLhter, Mwanahumisi Mus~ not truthful. It is not of a c&libre th~t a court of l~w could bas~ a fin0inL of £act. The' so cc.:..lled "ste:.r witness" (i_ow.5) eviuence b.lsu cvnt&ins a.n asserti0n which remained unsu~~ortetl Ly ull the witnesses in this case. Heh~~ allec~d that th0 u~pellant had in the ~recence of s0v~ral ~e~~le, while makin6 ~~ym0nt fl-r the ~i0ce of lun~ on which is situuted suit JJremis~s, st~ted th~t he w~s purchusinc th~t land f0r his "mother in law 11 Hc.bita l"ic.,hameu (uW.l). L-esi:,ih: th& sic;nific~r.ce C;f this stu.temc:nt o.nli the o.rrestint, n~.tu:i--t: uf the momvnt sc:..iu t0 have- been mu.~, nut a sinGle.witnt:ss th~t h-u witnessed the purchasinc tr2-nso.cti0n o.lluJ.0\l t0 it o Instec..tl yvu hc..ve the n,si:,undent ,::met her clnuGhtt::r cumint, up with uiL "rent st0ries. Hubibn M0hamed stntin(_'. that she had buuGht the ~iece c.,f lanJ 0n which is situated the suit 1Jremis1;:;s uut of her own func:.s th"'t she h.,.u cot from 11r1,NIT;-," while Mwan~hamisi ~usa talks cf hcvinL h-naed uv0r the muney to the o.p~ell~nt tu hund over t0 the vendor 0f the lanu i.e. ~w.5. Further ~w.5 stat~- ment on the issue is furth~r contr~uicted by the respondent's stat0- ment thut she tliu ll.Q.L. kni..M whether her unui_'.;hter, Mwunaharnisi rv,usr.t, \11D.s .a luver uf the avi,;ellant or not. Lin the eviL..ence on recvrd, th0 first O.J.,pello.te cuurt sh,ulu ho.Ve uisret;nrJ.ed this asEertion by H··io5 ■ Ln the t0tulity of the eviuence 1 1 find marit in the fintlincs of the trial c0urt. These shcultl not huve been revers~d by the first ap~ello.te court. dCc0rdin~ly the ar~e~l is allowed with cobts. Tha ju~tment of the first a~~ellute court is hereby quashed and its orC~rs set aside. The judement ct the trial court is restored. 6/10/1989 C urcm: .r,u l.Jamu, Jo Mr. Mchor~ - 1ur a~:Pellant - absent - Jvir 0 .:i&mt.,<1lawa,VNr. 1-(utashobyu fur r---s:µcnJ.ent - present. lJhh _t;/:j .01·.J..1,-,,.1\1 6th 0ct0ber 1 1989._