Ambindwile Mwakatenya vs Watson Mwambete ((PC) Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1996) [1999] TZHC 460 (15 October 1999)

t. ..... /,.u.;..., ... _ . r. ·- AT MBEY/i.. (PC) CIVIL APPEAL NO., ·19 OF 1996 .. -~~- ..... •' . _<,From the( decisi0n of the Distiict Court.: <lf Rtmg- ... rs s£Tu..~ ln Ci:.ii1 Appeal No.· 6o of .1995 · JUWr-I8I'1T -~ -· -"''·''-•·- .... - _, .. ... '-. . -. !:lJfii-J. ••-···• t fJ"·.-. • .. •-J. ._• • ,.. ·: 'r-,._I ,•r.-r.' ,;•1 T nct_.nt, Wa.tson Nv,:,.mbete, was the brotheJ; of -l!ikile d/o Mwambete. Tusekite ,,jas the judgmnt detor in Civil Case No. 4o. of 1994 prerred against her. by the appellant, Ambindwile Mwalcatenya. The -dec,re,e .:r:ied a··aum of hs.'72,000/::, Tusekile had admitted the claim and h had e"V'en 'paid. th,,;,rappell"'..nt .s:1a .. 2 .ooO/= towards its settlt• 13.)t~ faild to eatisfy the decree in full. 'f 'rhe a.ppellant, in consequence applied· for exec1i.f16~ · 6f t.l].G decre6- and in the cou.t>se of execution the shamba of the resrionderit worth h!,87,000/= was .attached. lt was undisputed - well as established that the shamba was exclusiv: ;.y the :;:m;,perty of the r;;spondcnt and that .. Tusekile did not have any interest vested in ito The respondent, in .. consequence• instituted objection 1,roc8e.dings a;sic..st" the c3:-ppellant before Tukuyu Urb5hdpri~~'.#yt'E::\J.l't cld~;11A-ix[ that ths sharnpa W8.S hi~ property whieh could not be attached in executio-:1 of the doc:-ce against his sister.. •rhe prim2iry cou::.nt wac s9.tfofied tha.t the s::,:1mba iJ2s the property of the respondent, h,-1.t h(;;ld that it wns :;1•operly attached,. The deeision aggrieved the respondent who p:refer1ed an appeal to the district court of Rungwe district at Tukuyu. 'rhe cEstrict court allowed the appeal holding thc.1t the respondent ha.dno legal liability to pay a debt caused by his B.dult sister. The 2.ppellant, in turn, felt aggrieved, hence this appeal in which both parties entered appearances in court and said they stood by the contents of the memorandum o:f a.ppecil and the written reply to it, reaetively. &4•o••••/2

. ... !.

• 2 I nm. ijo.tis!ied · that this· ··::'.;" ·1 is devoid -0f m0riti Tusekile w~ 01'\ '"'-du1.t · l>e~ ic,r,_.,; ,'i. t·· ·=d ic::-.d r o. iiclepende11 t li!e, · .... " As uc .-she w . iri 10.\1, :ms. ,r;:i.bl~ tci, ".nd rcsponsi1'1~ for• her own . - .... ' .,. - . . membe But a moral o_b.Jj.g~{::;;,.n · is ot 2.. leg:J.l ohl.igntion which could - ~qt1pd i:t ~ .anurt. ~-f ?nw.. In .1 t.he cuiuet::mces. I~~~~> ;,.,, -' -bold ~ district co,pt•s d:c.·'-i~~ ·thcit-:th::.shrunbn ot,tne fespond.nt -~~ z,.gt,271;,· 01\d-PC.'-Y -:ttached. . ·.'•.•J,::-• . ••·.. . . . . . . . ·. ·. . ... ---::., . • ,;.c: · .• ! -o,;,qlY _dwnisi; t.hir, -ijpe,"' in its,·~~~.Y----l.. '""'·. ",• : .,,, ·,:,·· .. --· '',. --.,;_. . . . : -.-:.· ·, ... ·; .. ·•·•, .. to 'hove his .fosts her and in -,th~~ '!¥il.o-; '"'" .,r:·- . .::"-; .. . AT MBEYA ......... --- ' 15 Oetober 1999. ..
• .. For Appell:mt: Present• ...·.:,·
• • For Respondent: Present. ·,. •\ ... .f. ·:; ~ 1,'.J . . ~ ..
• ..... ,. " S:::J=~? ..

---

. B.. P. MQ,SHl. JUOOE . .. ..... ·"••··