Ambindwile Mwakatenya vs Watson Mwambete (PC. Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1993) [1999] TZHC 47 (15 October 1999)

\. \ L fY\I w (-1 'LA · · ,:r,r -rrm HIGH oouRT ot 1.ANi.4NIA AT MBEYA . (t>rf ClVTI, APPEAL :NO; 19 'or' 1996 . . ,. , __ ' :- ' '·. =-,,•-•, • • . :. ·.' . . : : .. i&"tOJtf. th/ded,,i.sion pJ LtJ;l.e pistict .Pitrt of }]g-1e . _ .·. -. : ...... _ ,M·-.,.-,. ·. :... - ---- ,.:-· •. . ,.----'-· . ·:- ...... -=--::,--~ -7:~~ !•:--= ··:.l'l.>- .... ;:.:-- '--. ~ T i;\ Ci·,ril :i.ppenl l'fo., 6o of '1995 - ·• ... :-..: a e o• -i • ~ · • o o G a 6 o o o o o b MOSHI p J •·-' .. ... .. 8 - -4 T dt, ,ltson Mw.<3mbete 1 ~ the ·bf9Jll(;J.' of Tus,;kil~-d/o.-'- · . .:. ... Mt;~\i;:1je.,n1as··, me-nt 'e,tr in .. ,Civil·C;j.tJo ~~--; pr&ft,rred' again.at he1~ b~-t~~;;:dpi.llant, Ambind~·;iie'lrwclcatenya.c,:-: T.~~cre ,, . ;: :':"': -~~ : ._ - .. • • , .• • • • • 1 ' .. ' . . ' - itd a sum of shs72,000/""o Tusekile had admitted;.tb, .claim d-ha -had e paid the a.pt)elfa-!lt s:'13.,2.000/= towards its settlement t- ~ · ,fail to- eatisfy he decree in.full. The appellant, in onsquece, applied for execution of thG dere.e. . <it;:. . .. ,' . and in the course of exection the shamba of the resrondent worth . ' . s,8?,000/= was ttched. It was undis1:iuted as well as estf;;l;l:il:Lshd that the shamba was exclusively -the property of the respondent and that Tusekile did not have any interest vested in ito The respondent, in conseq'lence, instituted objection before Tukuyu Urba primary court prorty which could not be his sister. 1 rhe primary court w2._s satisfied -tha,t the .l?l'i...amba WM the property of the res:?Qndent, but held that it was properly attached. The deeisfon. aggieved the respondent who preferred aYJ. appeal to the district court of Rung·we district at Tukuyua The district court allowed the appeal holding that the respondent had no legal liability to pay a debt caused by his adult sister. The appella.i.t, in turn, felt aggrieved, hence this appeal in which both parties er.,tered appearances in court and said they stood by the contents of the memorandum of appeal and the written reply to it, reapeet,ively. 9. "" 0 •• • /2

.:•·•· :- ... 2 • t ameD-tisfied tha.t this :.n-.- 1 )-:>1 is devoid of ·merit., .Tusekile was -m -"tduJ.t ~ :;11:: -;-; · =A -d- hQl' b pcitden.t life. Ats i.ucl4 she was, in low,. ans{.1e:r-:tbl0 to·, .'1nJ icspons{ble ·for, her own ~ ,Jd wrioll,gd, s;wing ris.:::to lgl J:)Ji~.'.'.tion!: Th~ 'WO'IWi unt . . lb.: th ~ tht she WE'-$ sue": Y'!d hold-liahl.e per:mlyl It. -~~~s .t.}lc,t the ii, ,.Olll:.1.- l'./nG .t:Par,: '.: . 1.!ll.3d - mar ,'.ll a bl.tions ng tmi member•• But a rtroi'ril. 0QJ..ig::1ti::m is not i: ieg.,_1 ohl.igation whi'cll. GOuld ~ ~ •. _ - ~ • ot :cw• In ,ll ~ &irownstcrn.cei.,_ I 1:"ould t.d-·J:.lle'strict ot;rt•s·-et:..:::ion thot the $.hrun:}:) tru:·..,res;,en\i-. ~ Y• . ,;• ~ . w ..-,,igti,,J.y .eind ~~t· ··:·ttac.bed. . •· . , . ~ . · ·. . . . . . .... .... · '. -:,.I ae-co1::cHngly di5mi.s ·t.h:i.8 ,ppe~ in it& r> ~ha~~~ .. , , to h;,.v& his osts her .'."': ·" n \ o ,.. :_. ·o·. ,(;·· .... > ...,., ' -; \ 15 Oeto'ber ~ • .... , . ... For Appellant·: ·Present• •· For Respondent: Present, , .. ; . 4.