Ngitoria Lengram vs William Kirasian (PC Civil Appeal No. 26 of 1999) [1999] TZHC 278 (14 September 1999)

IN THE.HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA

AT ARUSHi:·: ::· (PC) CIVIL APPEAL .. NO. ,26 OF 19<;J9··= -. C/f DoCOURT CIVIL APPEAL Nb·. 11/1998 NGITORIA LENGRAM .•••••••••• • •• APPELLAI'n' VRS filL KIRASIAN • •• o •••••••• • .RESFONDENT , -:t. JUDGME~ • This is an appeal against the concurrent findings of fact by the two lower counts tha~ the respondent haa a valid claim of shs.888000/• aginst the apJ>ellant •. J)rief;l.y, the respondent's case was that he entered into an.?,r_c=Jl agreemenr,JNith the appellcmt. in .11--ioh he gave the latter same l;J~~. ?.f"giltgilion° for sale on the understandi"ng.-: tft tfre sid appellant would, rmit to the respondent the poces·;f sale. : • ' •• I• • . • • • The appellant's. case w,as , total denial of civil liabiiity .. - !n~ fact, ·:•,. . :.•: . .'•. . . . . ..... / . ~ :-:,·. - the appellant '.s ~~se w,a,s ba,sically that the respondent's ·-'ease· was ·-a frame· up· ·against llim •. . .·. . . :· :._·-.: :, .. ·.::• . . . IDn his three point pet_itj.on of· appeal the· appellant· has generally ,,. (, . ,,. ., .. ~ .t. ·t ~ _.,. • .-: .. -• - attacked the findings and conclusions of, the Dis&ict 9 .Court. tn · a . ' . . . . . . nutshel.l, he is of the view that the decision of the District Court was·· again·s the weight of the evidence on record. ~ ! . Admittedly, the case was decided on the credibility of witnes:ses·. . . Credibility is a question fact.. And the pronciple has always been ·that an appellate court sall not. disturb a finding of fact asetl on ;erbal testimoy nlss it is ,manifestly unr1:asonable'"' w1it v-··Thonias -{i94.7) 176 L.R.T.-498:,. ex v Karia Macof (1949) 16. ·EACi ll, .ar¥:i· Dadi Mwa- ·.. . .,.,.,. busi16~ John Masu:.dla. 1967_. HCD 59 •. The. conciai·_ ":issue be}o-/ thi°s. co-rt· :tn· thi,s secnd appeal, therefore,- it whetp.er· there i-,:~ything . . . .

2 unreasonable in the decision of the District Court. I have carefully gone through the record. I must confess .. ' ,., _..- :; that I have found ri6th.'ing 'rriaterial to fault the District C'!urt. The . - -· - . - ' . ·, respondent's' :aut·y· at·· the trial was t ___ e~~-blish .b,i..s ease on the . ~ ..... -• .......... --·-- - . . .·• ....... , -:.· ·-- .. --- - --- ·:·:,wn-ecie'si.ii'fu:y balance of p~~babilities. To this e)Ctemt he.-narrat;d ___ now"- ··: he -entered into the oral c,ontract with the appellant. -.~ .. --· ,::·--r~:1·c1:. Again he was generally suppo·rted by his witnesses. The appellant .. on .the other hand, did not say anything· much to dislodge the respondent's .ease.,, At ·best, the appellant I s case was a general denial which was unsubs- tantia.ted.- In the petition of appeal, the appellant has •mplaned, int&lra- '· lia, that the learned District Magistrate did ;t subje.ct the evideti•e at -the trial into proper scrutiny befo7'e ·awirting at his _r.speet;ive::. . -~ · .. : .l ·- .. -- decision. He has also urged that the deoisi~n of the DistI'.iCt:·IOtirf . did not' ahswer'·some pertinent' issues raisecti'•iii the appeal,. Wllith -~ . respect, the· appellant's assertions.have no truth. One only needs to look at the judgement Of the District Court in order to appreciate that what the appeilant is all€ging herein has no truth. \ The appeal is dismissed with costs., J.H. MSOFFE JUDGE 14/9/99 Delivered this 14th day of September 1999 in the presen,e of the respondent., J.H. MSOFFE JUDGE -~-- 14/9/99 ·-· . ..,. __ ..... ~ . ~~ .': ,• I hereby certify this td be a truEa copy of the orignal. .. '