africa.lawBeta
SearchAsk AICollectionsJudgesCompareMemo
africa.law

Free access to African legal information. Legislation, case law, and regulatory documents from across the continent.

Resources

  • Legislation
  • Gazettes
  • Jurisdictions

Developers

  • API Documentation
  • Bulk Downloads
  • Data Sources
  • GitHub

Company

  • About
  • Contact
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy

Jurisdictions

  • All jurisdictions →

© 2026 africa.law by Bhala. Open legal information for Africa.

Aggregating legal information from official government publications and public legal databases across the continent.

Back to search
Case Law[1999] TZHC 213Tanzania

Alphonce Manyanya vs Hamisi Nkuluzi (PC Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1999) [1999] TZHC 213 (3 May 1999)

High Court of Tanzania

Judgment

. ·-:: .. : : ... ~ ...... . -• t.ll·••, ,1. ~ ll1 C- -,b-?> 1~ ~ . ,. · IN THE· HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT· TJI.BORA ...-'.:.#r.tl ..... (PC) CI\TIL i\PPEAL NO. 7 OF 1999 (ARISJNG FROM Kll30NDO DISTRICT COURT ....... 4,. •• ,, CIVIL 1\PPEAL NO. 7/97 FROM OR•L C:rilIL CASE NO. 2/97 OF IcrBONDO URBAN PRIMARY COURT .. KIBQNDO) l.LPHONCE .. '\NYANYA • ~ •• Cl •• • APPELLt-..NT .:: .. VERSUS HAMISI NKULUZI ••• •• •••••.RESPONDENT Alphonce Man;yanya sued Hamisi Nkuluzi at the Kibondo Urball Primary Court in Civil Case No. 2 of 1997 claiming a sum of Shs. 3,46o,Oli0/= being the amount of ls and value of goods given · en credit to Ha.mis Nkul.uzi for the period 1993 to 996. Mr. Nkuluzi admitted liability to the tune of Shs.1,174,640/= only. !Ble Primary Court promounced jument in fvour o_f Alphonoe 1-bnyanya _as prayed. •. Hamisi Nkuluzi appealed o the District Court which all9wed the appeal in part •. The ,District Court entered judgment in favour of A1phonce M:.nyanya for· ·the a.mount· admitted by Hrunis Nkuluzi at the · Primary Court, that 4s Shs.1 1 174,640/= and allowed the appeal. in. respect of the balance. ing dissaisfied Alphonce Manyanya. (Appellant) .has appealed to this court. ) At the hearing of this appeal none of the parties was represented. by counsel. The main grounds of appeal as shown in. the petition of appeal which appears to have . been prepared on advice of counsel are as follows: 1._ That tne learned District Magistrate erred in law b1 admitting the appeal out of time. 2.-. That on the evidence on record the learned District M3.gistrate.erred in law in upholding the decision of the Primary Court. 3. That t,he 'learned District Magistrate erred ·:1.n law · and fact in deciding suit basing on the fact f:rom the.record which were not tendered in curt as evidence. 4. That the learned bistriet Magistrate erred in ·· not· reading ughly and evaluating properl,: .· a documentary exhibit shown .from th record·bμt only base on wrong explanation of the. Respondent. \

( 2 ) At the hearing of the appeal the Appellant raised the additional. ground of appeal, name],.y, bias on the part of '11• District M:,gistrate. On going through the record there appear to be. three issues for decision in respect of this appeal, namely: (a) -lh.ether·the appeal to the District Court was time barred; (b) Whether the Appellant had adduced sufficient evidence to establir,h his claim on a balance of probabilities. ( c) Whether there w&s bias on the pa.rt of the District Magistrate. With regard to the contention that the District Court awnitted ' ':,, the appeal which was time barred, it is not disputed that the Primary Court.&s judgment was• delivei-ed- on.-28-.2.1997-.-- In term~-of-.·#,e---20· _, ( 3) of the 11:lgistrate• s Dourts Act, 4:984 the Respondent had; ?,('5:°days within which to file his.petition of appeal to the District-Court. The said petition of appeal. was not filed wi th:in 30 days. lt,tis . };·r?· filed on 1.4.1999 when it was about 2_days out of time. Under section 20 ( 4) of -the M=J.gistraters Courts Act~~984 the District cour~ 1 has power to extend the time for fil:ing appeal either before or fter such . ' period has expired. By his ruling dated 25.7.1997 the lear.ned • District 1':istrata extended time for filing the said appeal. There was no appeai from such ruiing. Hence the appeal. to the District· Court was not time bal:'rede I now turn to the evidonoe adduced by the Appellant at the Primary Court. Apart from the Appellant five other witnesses gave evidence in sttpport of his clatn.sM3, sM4 and SM5 told th~ Primary Court that they knew the Appellant and Respondents .to have been friends and that the Respondent used· to ibta:ln goods .•n credit from the Appellant's shop. ~ey ge.ve no particulars as to dates, quantity and value of goods given to the Respondent on credit. Such evidence cannot be said to be proof of' the claim of t.l. I . the pellant aga:inst the Respondent. SM2 tendered a list of debtors (E:xh. PJ.4). On this list the· name of the Respondent appears and the amount he a.ll.egedly owes the Appellant. On the said list there is no signature of the Respondent aknowledging the obtaining of such goods on d:redit. It therefore, does not prove the claim of t:_ the Appell9.11t aga:inst the ~espondent• The appellant as GMI tendered a. number of dootunentary- exhibits. Exhibit PI is a list Qf 1laims by the Appellant against the

  • . Respondent for the period 1993 to 1996. No item on it bears the signa~ of the Respondent as acknowledgment Of ·responsibility.

.. · ' ( 3 ) Exhibits P2 to P13 are letters by the Respondent irequesting loans and goods on credit. There is no proof that those requests were honoured. .. . , ......... -·· Having failed to prove his claim, th~ _ pj.i<:-t----Magia;te was right in entering judgment. in favour· -£··-the appellant to the tune of the amount admitted by the Respondent and to allow the appeal in respect of the ba.J.ance. \t the hearing of this appeal th_e Appeallant ·,compl.e.ined .of bias on the part of the District Court. He stated th.at at the hearing of the appeal at the District Court the Appellant (by then Respondent) ' . had required the District Magistrate to disqualify himself on account of the friendship between himself ( trie District _.¥.iagist:r,ttte) and the Re$pondent (by the:zf,Appellant) but the District gistte did not disqualify himself• There is nothing on the record a?out this issue. There is nothing on record to indicate that the learned District . . M3.gistrate was biased against the Appelia.nt and the Appellant does not a.llege any incident indicating bias, apart from allegations of friendship between the District M:i.gistrate.and Respondent. This ground of appeal has no reasonable basis. The decision of the District Court is upheld. The appeal. is dismissed with· oosts,. . D.M,M·lrrA JtJDGE ~ Delivered ;in chambers during High Court Sessions in Kigoma. in the presence of Nku.1.Uzi, Respondent; this 3rd day of M:ty- 1 1999• , ,j. \S-::4,,J .. ··· / "'. ----..l-fVJ ··, /,,,-, ~ i ; i (........ J L:·.-:.--~:=;;- D.M,M:IITA JUDGE ~m

Discussion