Judgment
j-
TTrTT
L.
!1 - ij-- r'
(PC) CIVIL LP1LI O. 207 OF 1975
(FroLl the docision of tio Di trict CourL of Goito. at Goita in
Civil Lp;cai .o. 32 of 1972 Jotóro D. J. Guubo, Esn., Dietrict
Tiagiotrato and Original IIyot uThu Priiary Court Ci1 Cac o . 2
1V71
LU]?LTIIL- NZ\TILILI . , , . . ,
. .
, . L.PFEI;IiL..T2
Vorsu.S .
LTJITtJiLI IIZ\7ILIIiI
• J?flIC)IhiT
J U D G E UT
?
L. thic eeoc the c1ipi:n ic
hetCi1
two )o1orO over . pie cc
of land.
1o.spoi1o1 brher who wt: original rlaintj:cf
oJ 3 c Pri rj Court e L
1 TTI Gait Di ' o he J
in dioputo wan given or allcca±od to hin oo.ietiiva in
1956 y thu
then colonial ahor±tiS .
hat in 1953
his elder h ot...:r the
pr::sont appo1lenG cane
end oayoci UiGJi 1iJJl. .L.c OlC2.c1. 1i
and showed haj'. an area vue. .e.is land ehero
]juil; a
C jO 1 C i CflO.Jl I 1_La U
CL O,UCi oC( O
clam the whol3 lend and iict hia. TTatUTalJ-y..hc
r(1Y)fl(i01
rosiotd and filod this
actiOn
in court prayin for
vjCtJ.Oi.
of his brother tho
appo1Jaii. The
r pa
lO n ttO claia wore
su :ppoi tedI
by the itn00005 ;1io called. In :is dotbnco at
the trial, the apol1aait concedod that the eiccc of land in
dispe 1 longs to his brother the r po;adent but i:.c ea:Ld the;
ho wo.o ready () vacte on
..oce:Lv:La( aCeuate coepOr.satOn for
tho porneflont crops which
had
planto on the J.ond uini his
ocuDatiOn. hO
aO5OSOC(.L
the value of .;:is crop:3 at
he.1 9 500/=.
eio eno. ci ;ho ;rial
I'ri:nry CourG uncni.ciOLl.5ly
:LOLInO. :Lor
the respondent and entered judent in his favour as prayed.
T]c Prinary Court visi.ted. the land. in dispute end they r.c.:xdcl
that the appellant did ;.ot show thea the pornanCit plants ho
allcod to hove planted and in any event they
held that as the
appellalt hod abused the hospitality of his brother, ho
hod tc)
go.
.
appal t t' District Car; the a silent
3d
ar dc
oh r1jo
i clai'
contradiced .'io on teo:;iaeny in the Prirary Cctrt, ti•c District
Court had no difficulty in dianiusing his appeal. In his
.cieno:uith'Je of appeal to this Court wherein ho was represented by
Counsel, the appellant rope l;ed his claiie. over
ehuala and
±orulCr
i 1i Lri J CO1 1 O1d V! LC
his
witnesses, secondly that the
District Court tiled to nvceeon
his witnSeCS who had not bOOji aft ordc:d a chance of bo:Lng.
in the Priraary Court.
Firot ith r g rd to
c onpl:inG about witnesseS who
ere o 1oerc1, this is hardly true. The aepCllani
caliCdi enS
vJit!10c35
--C hoard, I carc.ot therefore
005 cu what busts the
Priaary Caurt could have refused
hoar his other witnesseS it
there were any. Lnd in the District Curt, no whore
iS it
re-corded that he asked
thot Court he
take adci.itiofla]. c.vichw.eC.
I aca therefore satisfied that the appellant o ollegc..t.on are
cc sobs t, eec • cl i'S
icr o nerC ip ovr
n b
arc aqi.ially baseless as
contradict his clear cvidor.CC in
the In ery Court.
the deciSion of thu
correct h
Court aao
the eviCcUbOi
e n ce this appeal
fi1e iu i d1 ?l.
\rCOOfluC d'o no cer
will be no order foc'6sts. inh'oUr.
IIfr, i'.IiIL
51 L.pnil, 1973 . JJJJ
UDGE '
\,-.\ •:.