Angundile Morohani vs Jeremiah Ndabila (PC Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1998) [1998] TZHC 2326 (9 October 1998)

AT HBE.J! (PC) . CIVIL Ar?EAL .JMtIB:'}1 18 OF 1998 .. .. (From the decision of the District Court of Mbeya Di'strict at Ilbeya in· Ciyil Appeal;.Ho. 88 of 1997 nnd I'.Ibali zi. Fri'mo.ry Court Civil Vase'. No ... 71 of 1997) . , l\NGillIDILE MO}l.OIL~:··: .. L •••• , ••••.•.• ·, ••••••••.••• APPLL.AJ?T. . . . . ~ . . . •. VERSUS JE nr;tf, ... ,iI A.H 1· "')" ·;;iI ";- ;.· . • .. · ' n 1 -::po' \m··' .. TiJ' -J.1..£1... .: .t:l,.J .J.U"l .c, t • o n • o e • o o • o o a.• « o • • • t • I 4- lr,J ii .i..lJ.·: - . ! ' JUDGEI'i.El.fT 8.JJ?_0P0 a • J. The appellant .An.tu.ndile Morohani w2.s dissatisfied with :the·· decision of the Y:beya District Court which quashed the lJroceedings L1 the Primary Court on the ground th2,t the appe llont wc.s. not an a11pointed adm.inistr;c:tor of the estcte of the deceased his father on his behalf he could. hnve claimeC:: .. the 11 head of. c2.tt1c from the Respondent JeremL:;11 Fdabila., This jg- the decision of the Jistrict Court on fi:rst G.)peal was properly evoked by -the learned r-:.x. Lwabuti ti (DI1). \ii tl1 the decisi011 of the, District Coi.,i..rt the ... free to c;o _tmd get betters ·of an estate adr:'.ini.strat6r ' he could have sued. the re sponclent afresh ( c'e noy-o) ·• · But, I have. gone tr.rough the evidenc.e of the . trL:tl _court. Thore no sufficient ovit."'ttnce to prove th:::it there were nny cattle of his deceased fat,llor.v'l.!uch were still being kept by th deceased father of the re spone.c~1t. The te stir,,.ony of the re sponde11t that .J,• .• the one cattle left be.nind with his f,.ther was paYi,1811t for upkeeping the cattle s;dely for clong time is c. f.:;1ct wl1ich was not disapproved by the appellant on :::. b:::le.nce of probability. Moreover, he claimed the 11 head of cattle ,nerely speculatively for he did not prove •... /2

• 2 t. that· such 1··11ead ce,ttle vms a female Eu1d if we:re a fsn:.lc it •ore m-iy offspring at all. · Since. thus Y'1S c. claim for his1own specific I - ? pr,6perty he ought 'to l1e::ve identified all' the cattle he w2is I claiming. The claim was S} 1 eculatily unsupported by evidence. 3o there is no cause of ,action established, for. the appellant ·to be allowed to go d11d file a fresh suit even if he wGro to be .:},)Ointed an admi:nistr2;i:;or. :I therefore, dismiss this n)1,e,al wi-t.i1 costs and oruer JGhc-t the appellm1t shall not file,.nnyfresh . •''' ... sl1.it.aeains the respondent based on this same subject mo.tter. : 9/10/98 Obrnm: Mon. Hwipopo, J-. sgd: E. L.K. MWIPOI'O JUDf¾E 9/10/98 .. pr,ellant - .Angundil-o :·.ior'ohani - present ,i' Uc spondent .;... Jeremie.h· HcL.::;ai•la .:. pr se1it' ... :·.C/0:.- Jt!rs. ·Kasu.birf· . ' Q_o;t1£1 Judginent dGliverod in the 1Jrcse11ce of both parties. sgd: :S.L.K. MWLPOPO, J. 9.10.98 Certified true copy of the oricirfr,l Judger1ent,. LIBEYA