Christian Thomas vs Erasto Thobias (PC Civil Appeal No. 37 of 1988) [1991] TZHC 2739 (1 August 1991)

• lN TJ.:Ll!; IIIGII COUlT OF T.Ali.TZAIUA AT K.1.USHA .. PC CIVIL APP::-lAL: NO. 37.PF 19138 (From the decision of the District Court of Hai at IIai ni Civil Appeal No.10/80) 3"-lAST0 TII0JJL-i.S : •;:.fl e ... • • •·• •• , •. •. • •••• •.,. • APP:::LI4 NT CiBLSTIAN TIIOl3I,AS .• • ~ •-•., p.u •·•• .••.•.•ti••• • IrTISPOIDI'.]NT ---------...------.-------,--------- :,· JU:BGEMENT This is~ second appeal from Hai District Court Civil Appeal No~ 10 of . . . ., 1988 originallr 1'1.",Ci.18,IDe Primary Cou::."t Ci vii Case. No •. 4. of 1988.. ll"1 the Primc..:ry . ·.· ·. . . .. . .. court th plaintiff Christian· Th~ bias sued for shs. 6, 560/ = costs he incui½:'ed in Machc1.me PJ:in,17 Ooui·t Crimial Case ].\To. 141 of· 1985. The tial co~~ ;a:ssed ., jUD.t.,IJ'Jll1:,t for t:ie .i)laintiff. The trial Magistrate, · on his Olm calculations· ,1: of he costs inet.i+Tea.: by.the plaintiff doubly inflated the claim thereb enteri~ jud~::1m1.t ll the sum of -ls. 11,, 9;t.o/ = The ppellate District Coui,t .!.. ., . . :. upheld the decision ot' the trial ·cou-rt. · Hence this second ,appeal. I rust fi.rst .. point out that·· th: original claim ·was only for shso 6,500/ = per the. proceocl.i.1·\s-S of .tho primary cou:d on the 17/2/19_88. The tri:11 court therefore grocsJ.7 or: 0 ?0d in•·'-inflat.i:rlc5 tiio claim to slis:• 11, 910/ ==• A party gets· tho recL:·esc he :.1as :pleaded so ·\he decrotal amount in the primary court _oU{}lt to be only tho ohs. 6, 500/ = ·J.aiod; the record is :r.ectificd a.C::}O:t'dingly. Tho dispute s-ca1,te:d on tho 16/2/198$ when .tho plaintiff filed a •sui.t to recover shs. 6,500/= costs ho had inred fr ransporting his witnesses . . . -, and a:pparontly pn3dng thdn allowances in. respect. of Criminal Case No.141 of 1988 at Mach2.mo P:dmary Court. There is_ no_• dispute that in tho said primary court case tho plaintiff, the present x-ospondent was the accused person b_oing prosecuted by tho late Era:sto Thop\ias, tho then ci>mplainant for malic:;.ous damage to propo:,:,ty. Th0rc is. _fu:rthci no/lj.:puto ,that .. tho plaintiff, then the accused wns c,cqtu, ttcd in Criminal- Caso No. 141 of 1988. . . . , .............. /2

·~ ·- . • 1 ... _.'' ·, ·:, Th0 onlJt issue is ir11cthor: tho apr,cllant had :reasonable cause tci complain in tlic matmial cr.iminar ca.so.• or whether ho j;,rosocutod tho . ~ . . . . plaintiff maliciot1BlY• .. , Thero is no c:.isputo that ·tlie·-i"appollant, then tho complainant, :fmtitl 11 trees cut d01m ·in his ·.,f:!l:J:<:1,1)4f;::-lic ·J:-epc.rtod, i];J.Q_·l)~~intiff, then ·t:1e accused. to the :;;iqJ:i..cc. aft.er :·t.t°i;- io1ina:t:i.ori. that --t;ho ·pl-ainiff _l1ad . . . . .. ,. cut down tho olcvon trees. That - boil'l(S tJ;io position tho appellant ;jua.ti\ fiably reported ·i;he matcr f·◊ tlc piic---rid- subs0g_uontly :J?I'.Osccutec:L him . . for mali ciov.sly c:i.2.ma;::;ir1g tp.9 :;J;-1 .trees. The :prosecution. was thorcfo:r·c not ,:. : ..... p:i:'ocipi tatod by nmJ.ico. In that circumstance, tho acquittal of tho plaintiff not vi thstandi_ng ho would not bo onti tlod to do,magesp sp0cial damn.gos in t1J.is c:,,so, b0cii~~ tho appcio,nt did. not prosecute him nw.lic- iously. _ Tho 0:..100.aJ. daos of shs. 6,'500/ = costs would have been ju.stiiccl if tho plainti2f ;.12,d ;~~-yd- that _ho W8,S prosdcutcd maliciously, thi;:,t is, t~.t j. . no trees had· boon · cut down or that tho case was sheer :fa:''..u:-i catio~ • .. U-ndor tho oh·CUI!ll3tan6os tho appeal is. allowed• ... To promote :i.'cconcilliati_on among the waning brothers, there s.'ul.1 bo no order fOJ:.' costs b-. oi tlic:r party shaii boar their costs for th:, case in tho COU:-c'fo below ana.::_:in this c1') 1 )cnl' .i.; ,,; • It is So Ode~od. At Arusha this 1/G/1?91. ~ 1/8/1991 Appellant:- in :vo::~G?ns by roprcscntc.tivos in poroon Respondent:- in poz-oon, fiMWRLKJ. .. ~010. 9. JUDGE 1/0/1991 • r •