Rwaitare Rwidegembya vs Kamulali Rwidegembya (PC Civil Appeal No. 109 of 1990) [1991] TZHC 2400 (6 August 1991)

. . • -it ~ n ---L_sr-~ m TIIE. BlGR COURT OF. JJ: tJJZ.tJ:lIA i~T MWlillZA · APPELLATE JURISDICTION (PC) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 109 OF 1990 (From the decision of· ·the District Court of Karaglie District. a:'i; Kayanga in Civil-il.ppeal No. 2 of 1987 -- Dofo;e G. M. Mussa,Esq:., Senior :District Magistrate· arid Original Ki tun.tu Primary Court Civil Case No.4 of 1986) ' RWAITllRE RWIDEGEMDYA. a O o O O O •• • O • • 0 • • • 0. 0 • Cl O O o O O O O o O O O ♦ • 0 • 0 APPELLANT VERSUS Kll.?iiULALI . RvlIDEGEMDYA •.••••••••••••. • .......................... BESPONDEl.-rT J U D G M E N T SEKULEa.2.tc The respondent sued the appellant in the Kituntu Primary Court Karagwe for 13 heads of cattle. The respondent and -~he appellant are half brothers, that is, they share the same fath0r _but different m0therse The responde11t•s mother appears. to have been a senior wife to- the appellant's mother. Their father is clcacl but the appaliants oo'ther is alive she was the 2nd defendant at the trial. Defore their f2:her died he had. distributec1 his property including he.ads of cattle to all his children, including tlle parties to the suit. It was however the case for the respondent -!1r'..t after he l:ad distributed his wealth to his children he re-'cr.inc.d 13 heads of cattle for his upkeep. And i·I; is these eads of cattle which the respondent as the new head of ·i;he fa.r.ri.ly was claiming from t:e appellant and his r:iother so ,_that tb.ey could bo distributed accordingly amonc the c.ecoased 1 s children. In the oourse of the trial the responc1.en t statecl that in fact that the heads of cattle he was claiming were ten. The a.ppeliant and his mother who does no-1; appear to have appealed • cla.ined that the heads of cattle in question were ·i;heir property. Tho appellant's mother contended some of the heac.ls.of.cattle.in question wer dowry from her da.u.f;hters. I have perused end considered the evidence on recorde It does O;Ppear to me t!.iat tl:.ere was ample evidence even from the appellant 1 s side at the trial to the effect that, the deceaaecl i.e. the father of _;the pa.rti0s -to the apperu ieft behind some heads of cattle after J:e ·had· distributed the :rest before his death. , ..... /2. ,,

---- 2 -- The respondent did in my view .eeitablish his claim with regard to . . . .;.. . .. . .• . ten heads of cattle a.s ·three were· accounte_d for. These heads of cattle, having been the property of the parties' deceased father; they were as the respondent claimed, supposed t0 be distributed to al.l·entitled b-enefieiares in accordance with the custooary law that governod the deceased este;'lie• This appeal therefore fails and it is hereby disoissed with costs. AT MW.".NZA 6::§::21. W., II. SEKULE JUDGE~ This judgment is to be typed, certified and sent to• tho originating c0urt to be read to the parties. m r..•• "5<,, ~ -... .tf,t•' '. - :'- ..--(~~ {1,iw"iii~~ : t!! , lii·<Y.-'•t-:2~\ ,t~~ ,! - , ,.. . ~ . J·t <·· · l' I .,<i;• ,·.1•<1'. :. ~ ); . .... I f ,-,"(.; ,l. ••·" ·''fc-"~ .' · ....:~~t..J"·-',tW,;1-..i '•'-'·,.· '<: ' \; :r.,~ '1,, f ' { J eJ.,CJi},,.,A''' ·f; ''.' \ . '+,:} '\ a~,f,, tci I ~ . \ t iJ.f.('Sf :.;,k ; . .: .t .. ', ( ,,1::.·.··R'··--•·;'--• I •, ! • . <I :.'}· f \l'!'·"'"''. · 1 • •· i 1' . '., -, .. ~ ... ,..., //f ,·J.• .( ,\ ~ /' ""· ....-<.;I' ;/ ,,, ' ~ .· ,._f'I' 'i. - • , ~ ;; >; ...,.,-:r"'i" · .J ____ --, ,1 1 1 n (} .w v~~~ W • H. SEirutE ' JTJDGE~· '· ' ' ,t . ~