[1942] EACA 51
The appellate court held that it was improper for the lower court to base its decision on evidence and findings from a previous suit involving different parties. The appellant, not being a party to the earlier suit, could not be bound by its outcome. The defendant, who claimed a closer relationship to the deceased,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1942] EACA 51
- Parties
- Appellant: Mlisho Binti Kassim; Respondent: The Public Trustee, as the Administrator of the estate of Abdulla bin Mtumweni Mchangamwe, deceased; Respondent: Mwinjaka bin Mwinyi Faki
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1942
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; case remitted for rehearing; appellant awarded costs of appeal.
- Judges
- Thacker J
- Legal Topics
- Admissibility of Evidence, Res Judicata, Costs on Appeal
- 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
Mlisho Binti Kassim
Appellant
The Public Trustee, as the Administrator of the estate of Abdulla bin Mtumweni Mchangamwe, deceased
Respondent
Mwinjaka bin Mwinyi Faki
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a court can rely on evidence and findings from a previous suit involving different parties to decide the present suit.
- 2 Whether the defendant must prove his claimed relationship to the deceased independently in the present proceedings.
- 3 Who should bear the costs of the appeal and the rehearing.
Ratio Decidendi
The appellate court held that it was improper for the lower court to base its decision on evidence and findings from a previous suit involving different parties. The appellant, not being a party to the earlier suit, could not be bound by its outcome. The defendant, who claimed a closer relationship to the deceased, was required to prove this relationship independently in the present proceedings. Since the lower court failed to allow both parties to present their evidence and instead relied on the prior suit, the judgment was set aside. The case was remitted for a full rehearing, with directions that both sides be allowed to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses. The appellant,...
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; case remitted for rehearing; appellant awarded costs of appeal.
Orders
- The appeal is allowed.
- The case is remitted to the Kathi for rehearing with directions that both parties be allowed to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
### APPELLATE CIVIL
BEFORE THACKER, J. (with Chief Kathi as an assessor)
### MLISHO BINTI KASSIM, Appellant (Original Plaintiff)
$\mathbf{1}$
## 1. THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE, as the Administrator of the estate of ABDULLA BIN MTUMWENI MCHANGAMWE. deceased.
and
# (2) MWINJAKA BIN MWINYI FAKI. Respondents (Original Defendants)
## Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1942
Evidence—Evidence and finding in former suit taken into consideration in deciding present suit—Different parties in later suit—Costs.
The facts sufficiently appear from the judgment.
The plaintiff appealed.
*Held* (19-10-42).—That a Court in a civil action is not empowered to take into consideration. evidence heard by that Court in a former civil suit not between the same parties or persons claiming under them or to decide the second suit upon the evidence or its own decision in the former suit.
Appeal allowed with costs and cause remitted for rehearing by the lower Court.
#### D. D. Doshi for the appellant.
Inamdar for the respondent.
JUDGMENT.—The learned Kathi in the Court below based his decision on the result of another Civil Suit No. 50 of 1941 before himself which case also went to appeal. That case was between one Mwinyi Haji bin Hamisi Haji and the present defendant-respondent. The present appellant-plaintiff was no party to that suit and cannot be bound by any decision arrived at therein.
The pleadings in this case show that the plaintiff claimed to be a neice of the deceased Abdulla bin Mtumweni and the defendant does not deny that relationship. On the other hand, the defendant claims to be an asaba of the deceased, and if he is, he would rank before the plaintiff as an heir, but on the other hand the plaintiff did not admit his relationship and since that issue was contested, and it appears to have been the only issue, the defendant should have been called upon to prove his relationship without any reference to a decision in a previous case. The record of the Kathi's Court shows that only the plaintiff gave evidence, namely that she was a neice of the deceased and there is nothing to show whether there was any cross-examination. The evidence somewhat abruptly ended there and judgment was then given, based, as I have said on what was decided by the Kathi in another and earlier suit.
The defendant should have of course given evidence to prove that he was an asaba of the deceased and so ranked prior to the plaintiff. It is admitted by Mr. Inamdar for the defendant that the case must go back to the Kathi for rehearing so that evidence in the case on both sides may be led and each party given an opportunity of proving his or her relationship. The only question for. this Court to decide is that of the costs of this appeal. Mr. Inamdar argues that each side should pay its own costs, since Mr. Doshi in his memo of appeal
has failed on one submission, namely that the appeal should-be allowed (having abandoned grounds 1 and 2 of the appeal), and succeeded on the other, namely that the case should be sent back for retrial. These prayers, however, are in the alternative—the appellant asks that the judgment of the Kathi be reversed or that the case be sent back for retrial. I cannot see any reason, since the appellant is successful in getting an order for retrial why any other but the usual order should be made, that costs should follow the event. It would be unfair on the appellant, seeing that he obtains an order for retrial in order that justice may be done, that he should not get his costs of this appeal. The case is ordered to be sent back to the Kathi for retrial with directions that the evidence of the plaintiff and her witnesses and the evidence of the defendant and his witnesses be heard, and the usual facilities for cross-examination given to both sides.
The appellant will have his costs of this appeal. The order in the lower Court that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs is set aside and the costs of that hearing and of the resumed hearing will be left to the Kathi to decide, according to his ultimate decision.