Tukuri S/O Kimweso vs Mwasibori Kirobi (PC Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1991) [1991] TZHC 2414 (23 August 1991)

IN TIIB IITGH COU:-cT OF TAN2lilTIA AT lsZ-T..-'UTZA (PC) CIVIL J.PP:'.d'..L NO, 28 OF 1991 ( .Appeal from the decision. of the District 0omt of Jiu,,.o):;JE.l. District in Civil Application C::.se rro.23/90. -Original Kukirango. himacy Court C.ivil Case li'olt-88/90 }. TUKURI s/ 0 Kil{fI:SO • ....... • ~ •• • • • • • • 1U"'P;.:;LL."J\JT M1.J3IR01ll KIHOBI: Versus JUDGMENT

M.1.S.t'iNCIIEJ J 1

Appello.n:t Tuk:uru .Kimweo9 was t:1e defendant in the Primary Cou:rt of , co• ... Kukirango in Uusomo. D;i,strict, In thut ?ritlO.l'y Court, Nusiri Kirobi held. sued him for a return ot five hoo.d of c&ttlc. !bsirori Kirobi lost the o The Frioo.ry Court ,ms of tho viow tb.a.t ho (.Masirori IG.1•obi) hnd not proved. his case 011 ;;alance of pro1mbili ty. lfu.sirori appealod to the District Court. lfu!'O l1e won tho appeal. The district raasistrc.te wn.s of the viow t~.iat in the P--..cim:.:11--y Court, the uppella.nt ho.d. proved his co.so on oolunco of probability. lfow it is tl10 turn of Tukuri to nppoal to this Court. Aftor :roa.ding tl~ records of t..1.0 two Courts below, I raally find no reason wlzy the lom:n0d district nc.cistrote reversed the decision of tho Prii:mr; Co1.Ut. · It is t;-ue th.2,t tho a_ppollnnt f a.ilod to pxoduco ov-idonoo to show how tbc cnttl.o olmngod lmnd.s. T;1-1 ;r·ocord shows thr..t, norrao.lly in. su_ch cc.sos, ::..:: oxclw.r:igo of cnttlo, a. rdeist-:ir is k'3pt. C;uch r.:>gistdr was not producud• The rJ13istJr w.y hrwe got lost, but ovid,.mc.; should ::....·w-:1 b.Jon lDd to stow tho.t such n rvi:;iatvr got lost. Thcrv wasn't any othor docLrrJntI'IJ jvid0nc0 • . AgM.n th.; decision in tb..:i Prim::i.ry Court wns o.n uncn.i.mous docirJion:, It is oy considur.Jd opinion thnt whuro tho dqcision of o. Primo.ry Court is on an unc.niraov.s voto, th0 district court, wh-ira tho ma.ttor gooi, on a.pp.:.inl, should hnv-3 ruc,l Good rue.sons for upsotting it, 'I",10 dist:r;ict court on a.1)peo.l should only I"0V.)I'S0 tba'dooision of t:1,3 I'ritm.ry .iourt Wh-)rQ it is vry eluo.r thn.t the svidonoc could not suppo:d t!1.:.i ducision. Indooo. 1 D.ft1;,1.r J;>vrusing tho two r0_cords of tho two Courts bGlow·, I find. till.1t thurJ ws no justificc.tion for distw:·bing tho docision of tho ?ri1-:ic1ry Court. ~ . ' ..,. Th-) oppvcl is o.llo'l'rod. TJ..1.0 jud[;!J:Jl'lt of the Primt1ry Got is ~ostorod. JUDGlD