Erasto Tobias vs Christian Thobias (PC Civil Appeal No. 37 of 1988) [1991] TZHC 2279 (1 August 1991)

~ 0 0 .. JN TIT@ IIIGII COUlT OF T.ANZAHIA . AT .10.1USHA. PC CIV°IL .APP:-'i.AL NO;. 37 OF 1988 (From the decision of the"District.Cou.rt of Hai at Ilai n;_ Civil Appeal_No.10/DD) ·" .. ]JUSTO TIIODJ.,\S •• • • " • • ~ • • • • ~ • • ~ ~ •. ! ! • • • ·• • .APPZLL.j NT V".:?laSUS ' · CIDLSTIAN TIIOBIAS' •o ~ • • .,. • .l .• •• •-~ •• •••• TI.°jSPOIGJENT -------------------.. ...... ---- J U D ·G;Iif ·M. E N T This is c second appeal from Hai District Court Civil Appeal N~, 10 of 1988 originall;r I4-">01ame Primary Ootu."t Civil Cas_e No. · 4 of .1988. In the Primr.ry court the plaintiff' Christian Thol)is sued for sl1s~ 6, 500/ ... costs he incw"Ted ... in Macha.me PJ:imnl7 Cou:rt • Crimin:a,l_ Case }To. 141 of 1985. · The trial court' passed jw:,oment for tli.o i">laintiff • The trial Man;istrate 9 · on his own. calcuJ.ations . - of the costs incu_::;'j:.>ed by the pla_intiff doubly inflated the claim thereby entedng jucl-{;1011t in the s of ohs. 11,910/=~ The appellate District Court . . , upheld the doo:i.si_on of th~ trial cov.!'t. Hence this second apeal• I must first po1nt out that the origin claim was only. f.or shoo · 6, 500/ = per the proceoclin,~ of the primary' cotu:--h on the· 17/2/1988. The trial court therefore gro::isJ.y cr:,?ed in inflati~ tl10 claim to shs. 11, 910/ =,, A party gets tho recl:i:'ess he 11.aS pleaded so::tho docrotal. amount i~ the prima1·y court oujlt to be only ihc ohs. 6, 500/ == claimed; the :record is r.ectifiod ac00:rdingly Tho dispute sta:i.~tod on tho 16/2/1988 whc'n tho" ·pl:intiff filed a suit ., · to recover shs. 6 1 500/:::: costs he had incurred· for tanspol.ting his wi tnos,iis and apparently pn;ying them allowances in respect of Criminal Caso Nc,.141 :t' 1988 at Machc:.mo P.:imary Court. Thero is no dispute that in tho said :?rimary court case tho :plaintiff, tho pToscn,t respondent 1·1as the accused person bein.g 1 . . prosecuted by tho late Erasto Thobfa:s, tho then complainant for malic:-.ous damage to propm:-ty. Thero is fwthcr ._no dispute that tho plaintiff, then the accused w2,s a.oo,_tu ttcd in Criminal Qa_sc N~~ · 141' ·of. 1988.

.. 2 The onl~~ ':i.sGue is· uhethcr the apl)ellant had :reasonable cause t-: complain in the mtc:dal ·criminal case or 1-rh0thor ho prosecuted the. plaintiff mal'i'oi01 .. 'lsly-e ' There is n~ .c\isputo that the appellant, then the complainant, RQ\it'ld 11 trees cut doun il:l hi1? shID1., · Ilo 19portod the plaintiff, then ·,;he 1 •. le ,,S' .... ' • ,.,.. '• . ! ' f • ' ~ ,•' 1 ;l'- • l ' '' ' :' , . ' accusoo. .. to: tho·· :,;ioli-60-·a.:fte'.t"jlgcttihg_ ±n:frmation th.at the -plaintiff had ~ ~ . cut down the o1cv-on t:roes. That boinc the position tho appellant jvctti- fiably Peportcd·-,i}}i.c nmttor· to the police and subscq_uontly prosccutcc. him . for maliciot1.sl3r ckmo.e;ing tho 11 trco!;l. Tho prosecution was thcrc:fo:rc not . . , p:rccipi tatod by nm.,J.i co. In that . circumstance, tho acquftt'a.1 ◄ -,f·· tl':t6 plaintiff ·not uithstanding he would not be.entitled to damages, opccial damages in t21is :·cnso, . because the appolb,nt did not piosocuto him malic- iously · Tho o:_,0.c~.o.l damages of sho; 6, 500/.,. costs would ho,vc been justifiocJ. _ . ,... if the plain-'d:cf :.ma. l):;:-o-vcd that ho uas prosdcutcd ooliciously, that is, that no ·tree~ had boon · out down or that tho case was shoot· fa-i:):i-ication. U-ndor tho cfa,cumstancos the appeal is a.llowod 11 . ''To promote '..'cconoilliatii:,n among- tho wa:rJing brothers, there s:1£.ll .,be no order i'm costs .so ci thor party s1.iali boar their costs for thJ ca.so in the coti:ct:3· l)clow 'and in this 8!,)uco.i. ~ TT•. It is So Ordorad. "f' At Arusha tJJ.j_s J/0/191. Appollant:-.in voxGons by rcprcscnitivoo in poroon Respondent: 7' in . l)CZ'llon. : •.-: l ·MUNUO JUDGE 1/r/1991 Q