Ally Mpombe vs Bangili Kipengele (Civil Appeal No. 36 of 1992) [2000] TZHC 105 (16 June 2000)

... I[\T THJ.iJ HI GE GOUR'£ OF 'I'il.NLL!\NIA CIVIL AI: FEi\L NO. 36 OF 1992 i.PPLICAHT ver-:Sus RESPONDE:N'1 1 JUDGNENT Chuwa, J. ~, •. ,o The appellant Ally hpombe sued the respondent Bangili Kipengele for a piece of land in K1;1arusembe Frirnary Court Kisarawe District vide civil case No. 11/84. He was net .successful., He appea.led to the District Court Kisarawe. in civil app<:eA.l No" ·.7_/:>,:,.. He succeeded., :foen he wonted to execute the decree he vlaS c: 1 .: J-j .:3E'c; te; file a, aepa.r8te suit so that he could recover the costs he !:-;8<l incureJ in prosecuting his case and ap_pea.lo Hence he fil.eC. civi:i. cc:se Nao 24/84 in the Primary Court and was awarded .shsoi::.·'+,230/·-o The respondent C:id not pay the a.mount immediately., ).s a rcsuH j:. 1;31:t; his house was attached a_nd sold to recover the money that was due to the appellantc 'l,.ne a.ppellant was not satisfied., . Ie a:onlied in -::he District Court to be :paid 30,404/:shs. being intereet on the arr.ciunt he \·1as awarded at tbe !'a.te of 2.(YJ; per annum plus co.:;t of tr:welling to Kisara.we ,l.i.ile he was trying to execute the decree. '111,.e District Court dismissed the claim and the appellant filed the present appealo In dismissing the application of the appella.nt the leBrned District f-"agistrate f:toted: ,:nivyo kwo. m·xl:::i m.yo yo rrnlimbikizo y,'3 kutolipwa deni m::ir.a:mm::i hii r...aikubc::lioni myo kwa sDbobu kukubolfa.ro n::1. m,dai ya nina hiyo ni kurudia. kutoa uimuzi tena lmtik:i sh_1uri la nr:idGi Na.G 2'-l/86 lililokwish:i tangu ftl\•laka 1 ':)(J'J,. 0 • • .. Juu ya ghorama zo safari kwendn Kisaruwe rrl::lb3kr::ma yo Mwa.nzo Mwarusembe m kwa Katibu l<Eta mwomba ruf:Jo hah.t1onyesha ubakika wa kufanyo snfori hizo. I:Io.kuonyesha h-1.ta tiketi zo n..rnli alizolipa kwa sa.fa.ri hizo•i. oo•••/2

.... 2 The issue th:it was for deterr,1imtion ,::::s wheth,:;:r interest was payable on the clec:ce.::;il Gum and if so o.t \vhat r.::1te,. Under Order XX rule 21 0) of the 6ivil Proc•.:dure Code District Couit has po':er· to impose -. interest on cJ.ecr0'-.1~L sums in C,3SeG ·,1here it exercises original ju:cisdiction subject to the rule ·ck,t such interest shm,ld be within '7% and 12%. iiegnrding t:c:msport costs in the absence of tickets or receipts the court shouJ.d c;.1.sk itself ,.,;hethe::· the deci·ee hc,lder h.ad to m:1ke the trips he c. .:v.d'.med. It should be noted thot :tural Tanzania it is ::ot prj.sing that transporters ,I1y not be i,~r-uing tickets as it is the <'Se with their counterp:;rts in citieso 'l'::ie ·claim of the appellant, therefore, ought to hove b0en entertained, Both interest and tra.nsport costs w0re not claimed in the Prirrery Courto There wo.s therefore no l'Dsis for bringing up the mJ.ttcr in the Dist1·ict Court by WGY of appeal o The procd.u:re adapted was de fee ti ve and the claint:nt was uoi; given ar,. ppp.:>l'"v•· .: : .. .duce evidenceo '.l'he appeal for tl13t reason fails c1nd the a,:ppe"i..J.a.nt ,should pw:sue his righte by filing a. ci il suit in the: Di.::-·:::·ict CciLu·t Sl 1 .bj ;Ct to the law of limitation,,. JUDG::.':; ·2s/ciJ95 JudgmE:nt read out in coi_,,rt in the abseYJ.ce of the prtieso Ju.<J.gment to be typed and D crtifir:-d copy oe for1:1.Jrded to· th8 Mwa.rusei1ibe Prir:iir--y Com·t where the pertie.s .should be sur:imoned so that the judt:rrent rrey be rend over to them. CHUA 28/9/95 I certify th3t this is e oric;inal. 19/6/2000