Gilbert Nzunda vs Watson Salale (PC Civil Appeal No. 29 of 1997) [1998] TZHC 2415 (11 September 1998)

IN THi~ HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT HBEYA (PC) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 29 OF 1997 (From Mbozi Distric"t Court C:ivi.l Appeal No55 (·'f 1996 - O;riginal Huanda Primary Court Civil Case No. 27 of 1996 Before: L.S •. Mtambo (Mrs.) - D/r-Iagistrate) GILBERT NZUNDA .t •••••••••••••• . APPELL.LI.NT VERSUS WATSON SALA.LE '' Oti-0-tJ000Cl00()t"OG00000 lli.SPCHDENT JUIGMENT The respondent, He.tson Salale, preferred a suit against the appellant, Gilbert Nzunda, before the District Court of Mbozi for a compensation of shs.200,000/:: for what he termed :,kudhalilishwa .. :-: He alleged to have been called a thief. It was Mbozi District Court Civil Case Jo. 6 of 1994. A settlement out of court was reached, and the respondent then yJithdrew the suit from the I district court under Order XXIII Rule I(1) of the Civil Procedure Code 1966, before it was heard and decided. The respondent then preferred this suit against the appellant before the primary court of Ruanda claiming shs.80,000/=: a-:3 _expenses .. incurred _in cmn\ection w_i_t_h __ tE:,_.dis.!_ri?t- .. .?_ll!..-c.se_. It was l<uand.a Primary Court Civil Case No. 27 of 1996. The claim was unelaborated and wholly lL.'1.Subtantiated. Not only that. The respondent told the trial court in the course of the hearing that the shs.80,000/:: was being claimed as part of the shs.200,00C/:: arrived at as the result of the settlement. The primary court u:na.nously d.imissed the suit on account of that the claim was unsubstantiated and μi shambles. The respondent felt aggrieved and preferrd an appeal to the district court of !1bozi. The district court found the claim of shs.80,00Q/.: to have been pa:i;t of the claim of shs.200,000/= .reduced in the. s_ettlement •.. 3ut. that finding, ·' quite obviously-., was mad.e in error. The statement of the clai.'ll was quite specific that the shs.30000/= was being clai.'!led as expenses incurred in the district court 0 4 8 0 G O O o// 2

2 Gharama hizo ni shs.80 OOOi •---·-· ·····-·•··-•·-•·• - ·······--···· .... - •· • .2 •. J~- .H.<::Y.?.. A9:=!:l...<?...! 1 :.-- lcl~! . ?.t _ws -!he laim whih .t.~~ .respondent was required in .. j.. ,· law to have established on the balance of probabilities. 'rhe district court then found. the decision of the pf.:i..mary court to ha've been in1proper without assiening any reasons, allowed the ppeal with costs, and ordered the appellant to pay shs .. 80,000/= to the respondent, again without any explanation as to how it arrived at that figure. Quite expectedly, the appellant, in his turn, felt aggrieved, hence _this appeal which .was preferred and argued before me by his learned advocate, Mr. Mb.ise, and resisted by Hr. Kayange, learned advoc2.te for the respondent. Mr.· Mbise preferred five grounds of appeal, 'cut in.the.circumstances of this case, I need ortly Gonsider and determine the• --<:_'!_Jc~ and .f.1:f.\t": grounds, which are: Lf. ~~he l'earned District Hagistrate erred in ordering the appellant to pa.y shs.80,000/:::- to .the respondent without any explanation as to how she· arrived at th.at figu.re. 5~ The learned District l"iagistra te ·erred on faulting ·the findings of fa.ct. !)'lade by. the tria}, court which is tl:),e. best court without ascribing any reasonso Mr. Kayange did not rnake any fol'.'mal submission before meo The learned • • ' I advocate told this court that he abided by the contents of f.. vJritten re:9ly to the memorandum.of appeal he allegedly filed. But there was nothing indicative \ of that he had filed any such reply~ It could'not .be found in this appeal record, and not ev.en a receipt for its filing fees could be traced. It became clear, therefore, that the learned advocate had not filed a reply, I wo1.1ld, with respect, agree with Mr. 1'1bise that the judf,!llent of the. district court was fraught with dissatisfac·_tion as set out in his two grounds df appeal~ . Th~ l_earned di.strict magistrate did not state her -reasons for her f,indin.g that the trial court's decision was inwroper. She also did not explain how she arrived at shs.80 9 000/:::. One cannot· stress· too strongly the importance of givi.."lg reason$ for~ or the· basis of, conlusions reached. It. is not enough merely to. set ou.t. conclusions without setti11.g e>ut the process of reasoning which has led to themo ••.•••••••••••• / 3 .

3 IU:. any judicial proceeding, failure to give reasons for any step taken and any order made n1 any decision reached is not a proper and judicial exercise of die;cretion. Justice is never meted out on whims or arbitrarily. ,Justice is evaluated not by looking only at the end result of tne case, but also by the manner in which that result is reachedo Perhaps· the leFrned d1strict magistrate is yet to grasp the full import of the principle eqhoed by ford Howart, C.J. in "It is not merely of some irnp0rtance, but is of fundamental importance that justie should not only·be done, but should manifestly'and U.'1.doubtedly be seen to be done; 11 It is a question of transparency. Transparency _and justice are inseparable. One of the essential components of transparency in the ,'administration of justice is to give reasons for all the steps ta}en and all I the orders mA.de and all the decisions reached. Any step taken and any order ma.de and aP..y d.ecision reached . i,· ' without assigning reasons must be quashed on appeal. In this case, the trial court, as already!' xplained, dismissed the suit . . ' . ' I with costs on finding the claim whoJ.ly unsubstai;itia.ted and in shambles. I find ,. I! that decision to have been justiffod on the facts and sound· in law. r,:'he claim .. was L.'1.deed unsubstantiated and in sha"'P.bles. 1 .rh :respondent himself was at a loss as to the nature of his claim. He was not certain about what he was I ,, clai.rnl.hg from the appellanto It is ti te law that findings of fact by a trial ,, court should be affirmed on appeal uniess the same were not arrived at reasonably or they cannot rationally be supported. The rati6nale for this principle is I • that a trial court has got advantage over an appellate court in tl1at the former •' I ' saw and heard the parties and their 111itnesses testifying while the k.tter did notQ. ·1 am, however, satisfied on account of all the foregoing :reasons that the decision of the primary court, sound as it were was improperly and unjustifiably impugned by the district court. !' I accordingly allow the appeal, quanh the district court's decision, set 2.side the award 1 and hereby restore the prin1ary court's judgment which I I I ,

:- ,i had dismissed the suit. The appeJ.lant is to have his costs here and in both courts below. AT HBEYAi 11 September 19980 F9r Appellant: Hr. Mbise, advocate. For Respondent~ Absent. B.P. MO.SHI JUD3E.