Janga Andrea vs Mhamila Mhoja (PC Civil Appeal No. 71 of 1997) [1998] TZHC 2434 (11 December 1998)

C / I AT TABORA c..r~ ................. ~~ PC• G IVIL APPgAL NO. 71, OF 1997 ( OH IG IN AL KARI9:U :C-H IHARY COT.JR T C IV IL C ASJ~ no. 1/97 PJTD nzrmA DISTRICT COURT CIVIL AP>EAL no. 28/97) ,J A.HG-A ANDPJ. 1 ~A • •. •. •. • ......... • .... • .... • • APIBLLAtTT Versus MHAMILA . MBDJA .............................. ~ ....... P8r'3PONDENT JUDGMENT .., ·,·- e t ··e - ....._ ___ ~ - _.__.,~~ ~~he appellant, Janga Andi ... ea, ha.d sued the respondent !1:a.zri._g .. ~~!. for a Hreturn 11 of some Je*e,, wells tnat, it j_s aJ.ler_sed, have been comrnandEm'J:(d by the said respondent. 1: 1 b.e appellant won the case, in the primr, Court of full:::h..tl! in nzega. Nharnila appealed to the District Court of Ezega, at Hzega. Here he won. The first appellate magistrate, the late Hfunr;o ,ar;reed with the assertion· by gJ-E1J!l .. _I-j that Jan.r;a Andi."'ea had sold him three wells and not only Before I tell the facts of the case as I have understood tbem, let me sa;,i that ·this is what actually. happens when people enter into buying an,d selling things without documents. i 1 he appellant, indeed, had some wells, and,it appear-a true thR.t he sold a we 11 or we 11s to the· respondent in e.xchHnge for 18 bags of pe.dd-y. 'I'hat was @J.fr!.ll -years r:·ow, what appears apparent, it se 1 ems, is that onl:y one well was operational at that time. ::'.:::ere I sa-y only one because I can see that if the respondent parted with

... _.-.' .

2 , 18 l1ctr:;s of 'paddy_, he must have bougbt more than one . well. 18 bags of paddy would just be too much for . , a sin::;le well. How., as time went on, it appears., the appellant sta1.,,ted selling his other. we.lls (see the evidence of his own dau,cihter Chewa Janp:e. Il!l). Because of the .., -...:e..:..- ... ~ shortage of wells on part of the ·appellant, his children ste.rted to draw water from the wells he had sold to the respondent. Che children were so chase'd away. That is when the appellant turned around and informed the \ l"ospondent that., after all., he had sold to him only one well. The appellti.nt could not produce any document to · show the sale. It is said the sale was onl-y between the two of thern.,: and it was not reduced into 'any writing. The o.ppellant was the plaintiff in the Court of first instance .. De is the one who was·· supposed to :;yrove his case on the balance of probabilit;1. This . ., I tee., he did not. What is obvious in this case is that the respondent has ir:.1pr>ovt3d. the .. Jfe11s and .the,.ap.pa11ant. is ,e71-ing ... thes---- ---·- ... ··· wells .w1ich he• eight years ago. sold,to the respondent. I 9.gree with the distri6t Court that. t.he wells belong t" · the rc:ispondent. They are the ones he exchanged;for 18 bags of padd-y ~ ... This appoal is dismised with costs. At Tabora 11th Decamer 1998 Parties: Absent .•. ., .... ., ==- I Jtnxm