Nsanjo M.P. vs Faustine Nzugumi (DC Civil Appeal No. 46 of 1997) [1999] TZHC 393 (26 January 1999)

IN THE IlIGH COURT OF TANZA!UA A~· TABORW (DC) CIVIL APPEAL Io. 46 OF 1997 OR 1 G CIVIL CASE No. 8 OF 1997 URAl\ffiO n:r.sryiru:crr couirn. Versus FAUSTINE NZUGOMI• •• • • •• • • .. • • ;.,. • ~ • • •·• •·• •••••·•RESPONDENT JU]}GMENT- :Ue Ibspondent, Faust.ine Nzugumi, sued the appellant., Nsanjo M.ll. t,-: Pu.I'.f)ose Coop era t,iV'e Sooiet.y Limi t.ed in +.he Dist.riot. Couxt. of U:rarnbo fo:r S.b.s,. 1,7.:P,OOO/= damages-· He parl:'..y succeeded.and was awarded Shao 71:P: 1 000/=0 This agg:uieved Nsanjo who preferred this appe 11.b.e 'Ul1d.ispu+.ed faoi,s of the· case' are +.bat the respondent (original plain1,iff) sent to the maxka1, 6 bales of t.obacooa Bu+. t.he primary Coux-:, · of' UraJI1bo Urban issued a :rest mint orde I' against; the sale of the saicl. fobaoc06 T.b.e appellant. (original defendant.) had applied for +J-iat. rest.rai:::-:'l o:rde:t' b-:,cause t.hey aJ.lege that. tobacco belonged to one Ezekiel lvI:.d.ngu who was +.heh, jud€}:nent, debtor- . Becaw;ie t;he Primary 06L1-X'f. o:rde:rs ·we_re no+. properly signed the tobacco· -was evenfu.ally released and sold a+. market. N0o4 insi;ead of t.he original market; No., 3e One bale was not, sold a+. aJ.l because tJ1e classifier condemned it was :ro+.teno-:, ~10 sponden-:; claimed Shss · 1 1 000,000/= general damages and Bhse75),000/= sale price of 'l:he t.obacoa.: . The +.rial. court. dismissed bot,h claims but awarded Shs. 75),0'JO/-i= allo[s(.ldJ..37 for suffering bet-w0en the 3rd and 4+.h maxket period and to , support, his family and his business•. Hy Kayaga, learned counsel for +.he appellant. challenged that,· decision on three fron+.s:- (1) P'nat, +.he reliefs granted by the +.rial court. weie not 1 pleadeda ( '.?.) 1'hat. the issues f.:ramed were not :resolv-ed• (3) !m.1at. +.he int.e:rest. shows that t.he decree V'aries from t.hc jud€}:nent• I age wit,h t,hc .t,·:r;i.al oou:rt that. t,he claim for general damages v1as no+. p:roved• There is/no evidence that. the appellant. aet.ed malioiou.sly -wl10n the3r applied for the at+.a,ebment. of t,he said tobacco• .,

-~ ... ... I 2 - · T.ba claim for an+.ioip_a+.ed sale price was also cor:reotly as t,he I'errpeii.1.d.en+. lat.er sold his t,obaco~ 'J1lere is no evidtnce +.hat prices a·h +.he 4+.hmark.e+. were·iower than those at. +.he dmarkete It. is not. s1;at.ed how long it took from t,he +..bird t,o i;he 4th markete !Tm: is· it. st,a+.ed how -:,he responden+. 1 s family sUffe:red by merely wait;iJ.~ io sell the t.obaoco at the 4th i."1.sf.ead of t,he 3rd markat,.. nor is it s+.at.ed how the selling of :t,he t.obacco in t,he next. market. coUld . ' . have affect.ed the respondent. 1 ~ shoe' business. Worse st.ill these ieliefs were not, prayed for in t.he pleading t'.so it. was improper for +.he +.rial court t.o GI'an1; +.hellle The t,:i'.'ial magistrate ought. t,o have resolved each issue he framed. But. +,his would not, have rendere ci the. judgment void by i +:self. :For H1.ese reasons I am of'. t.he view t,hat. t.he Dist.riot; oourt arrived ·at. t.he. w.ro1~ dErVision. Therefo:re I allow t,his appeal a..'1.d quash the judgment. of -~~1e lower court with oos+.ae Order: .. L.B., :MCHOl\1E 1 JUIDF.,. 4/1/1999 ~ 1 ]ie parties are +.o he not,ified of +•his judgment. .fuuned.iat.ely. ~ 1w B., MCHOl-fliJ, · , · ··- · JUIGEo 4/1/1999 Court.: Delivered in t.he presence · of Mr. Kayaga for t.he appellant, and Mrc Mt;ak:i for the respondent.. P • I:,1. KENTE, Age ·DIS9:;RICT RW IS 1 :PHAR, 26/1/1999 · I oert.ii';y -f;hat. this is

.. · :· .. .. '• C '• • .. ,, . ...,