Nyamutengera s/o Wangeta vs Adamu s/o Monzo (PC Civil Appeal No. 322 of 1975) [1978] TZHC 17 (5 April 1978)

IN THE HIGH. COURT OF TANZANIA (In the District Registry) IT NUSONA (Pc) CIVIL APPEL NO, 322 OF 1975 (From the decision of the district court of SERENGETI it SERQNER1, in civil appeal N-Ii. 15 of 1975 Before I.L.NYJdLd<ATO, Esq , DISTRICT MAGISTRATE: (Oricinal Ikizu Primary Court Civil Case N 9of 1975) NYAMUTENGERAWINGETAO ,,,.0,0,..., 000 .00000 00000000 0LPPELLANT versus ADAM MONZO,OOO, O OOOOO, OOOOO, OO , OOOO , OO ,.. O . O RESPONDENT CLAIM: FIVE HEADS OF CATTLE, shs, 50/ro -OcO- JU D G ME N T KATITI, J. In Ikizu Primary Court, in Surengeti District, Nyamutengera s/o Wangeta the appellant, filed a suit against Adamu s/o Mcnzo the respondent (his brother-in-law), claiming five heads of cattle, that he claimed was the balance on the heads of cattle, he had entrusted to the respondent and his wife (the appellant's sister, now already dead) The appellant also claimed 501=, a debt that the respondent had incurred after the demise of the res- pondent's wife0 The respondent denied, he was ever entrusted with five heads of cattle by the appellant, and as for the 50/=,. he called one of his wives to show, he had paid it a long time ago. The Primary Court unanimously found in favour (-,.f the appellant, hence the respondent's successful appeal to the District Court0 The District C.)urt, after meticulously analysing the evidence, found that the evidence was so thin, sc tenuous, that a Judgment upholding the claim, could not •n the evidence adduced be handed down, in favour of the Claimant0 The lower Court's Judgment, was therefore set aside, and the claim dismissed0 The appellant, has therefore appealed to this Court, not saying much, if not anything, to improve on what he had said below. His claim in the Primary Court, was that a long time ago, he had had occasion to entrust six heads of cattle, to the respondent and his sister, and that having withdrawn one, there remained five heads. He added another claim, that the respondent incurred a debt cf 50/=, after the demise of the latter's wife, the appellant's sister. It should be understood, that it is common ground, that whoever files a claim, and expects a Court of law to give him Judgment, must prove that claim with the necessary evidence unless the other party admits it. That is, random assertions, will not bring the claim any nearer to the claimant, (Rule (2) of the Magistrates' Courts (Rules of Evidence in Primary Courts) Regula- tions, 1964 Cap 537 refers). In this case, I find myself unable to dis- agree with the learned District Magistrate's conclusion, that on the evidence, the appellant did not sufficiently prove his claim. The appellant did no more, than launching a claim. There was no sustai evidential follow-up. His witness could only say, he heard the part k ut the heads of cattle0 And on the debt of 501=, while the reso ..ctness emphasized, that the respondent did pay thd amount suhs'ly, .Lhe apant's witness talks as to how, the same debt was incurred' .m)e dve,\l\ annot say that the District Ccurt erred in allowing the feal ddi.sisn the claim. I boo, dismiss this appeal with costs., \ HIGH COURT OF TANZINL. K1 AT MUSOMA, 5/4/1978.