Matthias Maingu vs Lelonjo Soketi (PC Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1990) [1991] TZHC 2416 (28 August 1991)

\ IN T:lli HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DODOMA (PC) CIVIL APPEAL N0,7 OF 1990 DODPMA AT DODOMA IN CIVIL APPEAL N0,62 OF 1989, AUI-IUMBIK,A,1 l: . ORIGINAL RAN.ET! PRIMARY COURT ; CIVIL CASE' NO, 2 OF 1989. I'1AT:TI.AS INGU •.••• I ••••••••••••••.• APPELLANT VERSUS LLONJO SOKETI., ....... • •,. •• u-•·• .... , RESP ON.DENT JUDGM£NT

• ....... 'I... - The appellant in .t.;.J.s Gecond appeal failed both in. the Ptj/J~_ Court of Haneti and in the ~istriot CQurt of Dodo::w... · He had sent the respondent herein to the Prlrhary Court clair.iing to be paid a sum of ,3hs.1 O, 320 /= as reiraburseraent for the expenses he in-ellrred in 1:1aldng . water-ponds for the respondent's.cattle he was looking after. Two head of cattle as labour charges for ;Looking after the respondent I s cattle, ·rwo more head of cattle alleged t.o.have been nixed up in the cattle for .• . ' r' -,'"" ~- the respondent and taken together with the respondent's cattle when the '? respondent took away his cattle. The appellant fl.cl:,t_ly faiiea to prove all -what he was claining for in the Primary Court, The trial court therefore d.isnissed the suit with costs in a unaninous decision. The appellant went to the District Co-o.rt on appeal. The District Court found no ba,sis upon whi.ch it could fault the unaninous decision of jj1 Thereafter, the appellant decided to appeal before this court. The problen with the appellant 1 q clains is that the evidence on record does not support such clains. It is true that the appellant was looking ·fter the res 1 Jondont 's cattle. But there· is no evidence to show that there had been an agree1:1ont whereby the respondent had to pay for the appellant's labour in the forr,1 of two head of cattle,. ••• /2

·2 • . ThG r0spondent ex-plained that the appellant was enti tlcd to the r:u.lk fror:i those aninalsi Again, it is difficult to agreG with the appell8Jlt that the rcspondeht had to pay back the sum of Shs, 10, 320/= as expenses incurred by the appellant ,in working on sane water-ponds for the respondent I s M.ttle. '.I'hd-•appelfant fo.i:k$d to prove such an. expenditure. There waa no evidence also· to show that the respondent had taketl two of the appellant's cattle when he re::1oved his aninals fron the place of .. the appellant. In the result, this court is bound to concur with the decisions of the lower courts :in disr:1issing this appeal. ,. .f. ~, .,._. --:• ............... . This appeal is therefore disnissed with costs here and in the two lower courts, DODOMA. 28j§i1J. ·•· - · Delivered. in ~ .. -1 -· l c!1ar1e 1 ~: -~this prescnce·of i,he partios. DODOMA

• - 28/fli3_1· .:· . n q (\ c_ --'1~< (R.J:~UIBTI'IBIKA) JUDGE • ~...:.. Tho appellant iE. inforoed of his rights of further appeal· to .• the Court of Apr; cal but subject to; \

1. Leave- to apr ea1.

1. 3) Certificaticn of a point of law. LiD.i tation I eriod. n c+1 .. d c:;_· . .. -lA,d ( R. J. 1. RUHUf 1i:sTY..A) DODOMA 28/8/91. .. JUDGE ii