Abdul Sanga vs Samson Mwanyesye ((PC) Civil Appeal No. 48 of 1996) [1999] TZHC 464 (2 December 1999)

·A IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZ_ANIA -- h••~

• ... __ .. -- ---·- ... -·-----.:.. (From the decis~on of the District Court of Mbeya ·----- Dist.r:i.ct at Mbeya .in Civil Appeal No. 75 of 1995. Original Civil Case No. 22 of 1995 of Mbeya Urban Primary Court BEFOREi s. M. RUMANYIKA - RoM.) . AIIDUL SANGA APPELLANT VERSUS SAMSON MWANYESYE RESPONDF;NT JUDGMENT .,. ==w MWIPOPO, J. ,.:· The respondent Samson s/o Mwanyesye sued for costs and loss of Shs.900,000/= incurred while he was sued by the appellant.Abdul s/o Sanga in Civil Case No 24/92 and No. 1/1992 at I~~si Primary Cpurt. In both cases the respondent won over claims of being with . , '.• .... the 15 and 36 head of cattle of the· ~ppellant in the 2 respective civil cases at the primary court level, District Court level up to .this High ·Court's level. His loss was claimed to bE, in terms of failure to cultivate his paddy farm of 18 acres due to being required to attend -court sessions.- He also claimed costs of fares to Igurusi from his village and to Mbeya District Cour.t during the hearing of the appeal. He further claimed in the pleadings to have once engaged an advocate, but he did not testify so when giving his evidence on oath. The trial court entered Judgment for the respondent for a· . reduced compensation of Shs.700,000/= ··from the hs.900,000/=· claimed. The District Court of Mbeya .further reduc·ed the granted costs. and · compensation to· Shs.500, 000/ =• The appellant has nothmg in his favour as concerns hi liability ••• 12 I j

2 - for foe costsa It was properly held 'by both two low;er courts that he was liable to pay some costs. to the respondent for copstantly (twice) being ,sued for no _good causeo What can be consi.lered in his favour is Just in respect of the quantum of damages if it was jutified to . enteJ'.' a judgement of Shs500, 000/= against him in favour of the resrondento Both two cases were of the same year of 1992 in Civil Cases Noo 1/1992 and No. 24/19920 So, any _lost paddy produce was for one . . ' year onlye At the hearig of this appeal I questioned in 'detail how come he suffered loss or incurred costs of Shs900,000/= and he miserably failed to establish such huge costs which don't .make sense at all. Going by his scant.testimony he coμld as _well have been granted only token costs and compensation for being sued twice without _good cause. He said he used to cultivate only the 8 acre~ that is quite an exageration possibly he cultivated¼ of that acrage at 4 acres. He in each acre got 25 bags That' too is an exagr::1.tion he could have got between 10 - 20 bags because h did.not sa:y if he was using at permanent irrigation as L. Mbarali Hice~ Farm or Kapunga NA.FCO Rice Farm. Igurusi area is a direct semi-desert area and if he depended on the the scant rain and floods fromLdow:nstreem rivers flowin[; from Uwanji and Uporoto Mountains the production isn't that much assured due to uncertinties of water supply An average·of 15·bags suffices for . of this claim. He could have got a tota1L6o bats of paddy .at Shs.3000/= per bag by then in (1992) it could come to lost proceeds of paddy at Shsel80,000/= (60 bags x 3000/= per bag) •. But that is gross earnings. There are other capital costs involved in cultivating, planting, weeding, harvesting and safe upkeep, as well as storage etc. The net profit for only which he.is entitld to·claim must have been lldly ~ of it at Shs.45,000/= net profit (180,000/= x¾,) • . '' I For the advocate he paid only Shs.50,000/= who ought to have . .

' I

• 3 - . supplied him a receipt in the absence of'which he could have engaged no advocate at all, or if he did, he possibly paid him quite less than that especially because•it was at an appeal level and in only one appeal. Advocate's fees for this simple appeal ·could have been hardly 20,000/= by then (1992) whi.ch I hold it. so at Shs.20,000/=• From Igurusi to Mbeya he came 8 times at Shs.500/= fare per trip it comes to only Shso8,000/=. From Uhambule village to Igurusi he went 8 times at Shsol60/= per trip total Shs.1,280/= only. appeal . hs for L he used to pay Shs.500/= per trip. He made 16 trips in all at Igurusi and Mbeya which amounts to Shso2,560/= (16 times x 160/) • Total costs are only Shs· 75, 780/= (Shso 45, 000/= ·+ 20, 000/= + 8,000/= + 1,280/= + 2,500/=)o I therefore reduce the costs and compensation due to the respondent farm Shs.500,000/= which is unbacked by any evidence at all to Shs.75,780/= onlye This appeal is partly allowed without costs because either party has partly won Each party will bear his ovm costs. J Coram: Hon. EaL.Ke Mwipopo, J .. Appellant: Absent Respondent: Absent 13/c. Kosam Ei. L~ K~ MWIPOPO JUDGE 2/12/99 .£2..URT: Judgment delivered in the absence of both partieso District Registrar to inform them accordingly. E .. 1 .. K.; MWIPOPO JUDGE 2/12/1999