Ephrem Kivishe vs Royal Pre-School (Civil Appeal No. 80 of 2000) [2000] TZHC 140 (20 October 2000)

I.

• ,, BlJl3ESIII ,1, 1.:,. IN THE HIGH COUi(T OF Ti-1.N.ZANIA AT DAR BS SALAAMb

---

CIVIL AfPEAL NOo 80 OF 2000 EPHREM KIVISHE ••••••••••••• APPELLANT VEJIBUS ROYAL PR.I;-SCEOOL ••••••••••• RESPONDENT. JUDGEMENT

• .,..._ f The' appellant, dissatisfied with the judgment of the Housing Appeals Tribunal dated 11/2/2000, has filed. this appeal, on the following grounds:- ; that the appellate tribunal erred in law in wSSsing the (-:~ - balance 0f rent due to the respond.snt up to Da'1rr.oe:::· 1996 .Jnstead of 18th Ju...11e, 1'.19> i·:hen te keys were handed back ' to the appellant. that· the appellate tribunal erred in law fo hold that \ wrifing letters suggesting a higher rent on new. premiseE1 I . .· khere no rent had been agreed upon arrount1l, le' trustration which, could ezenorate · te rsr-,ondent from paying rent· for the period: she locked up the premises. that the appe~ tribunal chairman erred in law in reaching the said fie;ure :or Tsh~ 54 1~, 150/- by inferring from various ' correspondei:ce and not eviuence.-, ·' . ·, l In his submission,·r-1r. Jr,uguwa learned counsel for the appellant submitted '} that as tp.e respondent handed th~ keys .back in .July 1 1999, ··-then rent be calcu ... rated ui, to- that date li~ti not December, 1996. According t-o- Mro Luguwa, the ·, :.. ... , .. ~ balance due came to Tsh •. 1,170,oo_o/,,.. :/' ,; .• On this issue, the trial Tribunal ,had held_ that as tp.e appellant had .. ntivised. tqe room by keeping his items in the same room, then the respondent was only entitled to pay half the amount 0 ,, I must hasten to say that this issue was not among the grounds raied du:ting the first appeal Hece the appellate tribunal did not consider the same iJ.?. thei'judgrnent. If this•.cou:r-t 'were to deal with it,'. it would amount ' 01ng ,.: . to · backito ,the decision of the trial tribunal which in my view would be· ".>/

• -2- quite improper. The apellant is supposed to challenge the decision of the appellate tribunal, and 110-t bring in matters which were not tlietermi!1ed by the appellate tribunal. I therefore dismiss this grmu'1.d. · Coming to ground two. I have considered the decision of the ap1,,ellate tribunal quite extensively but have found no where the appellat chairman based his dicision on the letters written. As a matter of fac:t what has been stated in this ground of .?-ppeal does riot feature in the judgment at all, I also dismiss this groundo On ground three I am of the view that the refund of Tsh. 874,150/- as construction cost or9ered by the trial tribunal was quite in order, This amount is clearly explained how it was arrived at. I think the ap)ellate tribunal had no basis to reject as it did. In the end I dismiss the ">?p·,~J- except for the va:-iation of the figure in ro~~d 3 above. The respondent :i.': ordered to ref1;1-11d the appellant 'Tsh. 874, 15t/-. In all bther aspects the appeal is dismissed., with costs. Delivered before Lyimo for Respcndern. Appellant absent. , , .... r· //·1: ;'/ . : ; ''!,{ ; '"',,· ., f!.-•·, I/ \ j j--'' , •. ,.J h ., :J.,• ,;:.:'_,( •_ A.G. Bubeshi JUDGE 20/10/2000