Msomaji Sagalali vs MachenaChimosa (PC Civil Appeal No. 40 of 1990) [1991] TZHC 2385 (11 July 1991)

' ,,~ ,i ' _,·· -l',, :- ., ;::. i:,": -'• f !' . I -UP.. 1111 4 woe. 1 sec £lUHU/1BIKA 1 IN TI{;~ HIGH COURT O? 'rli.NZ/:.NIA AT DODOY.LA (PC) CIVIL APPtTILL No. 40 OF 1990 (From the decision of the District Court of Dojoma at Dodoma in Civil Appal No.51 of 1990. Original Civil 02.Se No. 66 of 1990 of Primu.ry Court at Urban ,ou:rt T) MSOMAJI SAGii.LALI • • • • e • • • • • • • • • • • • • • APPELLANT v0rsus Ml:..CHE:.Nll CHIMOSA etoee•••••oooooo•oo• RD.:3POHDENT ______ .............. _.---- J: ThG a:pp.ad aris;.;s from th.:: decision of the Urb3J1 P dmary Court of Dodoma in llii:.+.Case i:fo. __ 66 of_J..m. Th,:, a:r;.:pollant h:Jrein coramencod obj"'ction proc,:Jdings relntin3· to th-., attachCT,mt of his five h0ad of cattlllill, Th0 rts~.1ondent hrtJin W2..S litigating with on.:; p-.;;rson cattk Palingo Cher.ru wherby the Pri:;.10.ry Court of Hondi order"'d Palingo 0, Chemu to pay to,the raspond.ent / total of 25 h-..:ad of cattle. In .:ixecution of th.:: decrGe ag:·.inst Po.lingo the r0spondent attach0d some five hen.cl of ca.ttl.J fror.1 on0 .:.,orson called l"Iarnalayi (c..:i;,pee.ring as M2.ffiaji in th~ District· Court judgrn::mt in fu.1... .. ~~~~..1!2..!. 51 of J..2222.• This p__.rson hims0lf did not objdct to th0 attachm.;;:nt. But the a,_,pGll,:·,nt is th.:: one who did. The Prir.K:.ry Court found for th., a.pellnnt and ordered for th(· r0turn of the five hM of cc.ttle to tho .?.ppdl:::nt. Thia rcs_;;;on.ient weis not satisffod with the decision of the Prii:1t:.ry Court ancl went double-quick to thG District Court on a 1 ,putl. The District Oourt reversed th.:: decision of the trial court and allowed the appeal. Tharcupon, thu a;y01lant, bdng dissatisfidd with the decision of tho District Court• decided to a.!:'pt?al bvf ore this cm.rt. There are po.i;::11:: the ap;;iellcnt cl2..ir.1ed were those fr m whom he obt2.incd the,fiva ho:::,d of cc.ttle. HmT0v.;;r, thiJ 2..JfJellsnt did not cc.11 o.ny of the~. . ..... :.,.. .... · . . : A,.·., . .r "lj-,

-i, , ,j • 2 For instonce, the apellant did not call one TibuDingodi from whom tht:J al:,9ellrnt cldi:icd to hc.ve obk,ined threG hcw .. d of cattle through exchanging those a.nibals with food which he gave to Tibu Lingodi. The a..;pellant rtlso f[!.iled to call his broth1:?r-in-law he cldmed hc..d. tiven to him two he:c,el of cat th, 8.S bride-weal th on gGtting rac.rried to his sister. Th0 ni,pGllru1.t did not ei th::r call this Man1alo..yi to whom ho clo..imd to hav kpt the five ho..cl. of cattle attcchad. During the h,:w .. ri:1g of this ai:j_)oo..l, th-3 respondent oaink.in0d that thG co;i.;tle attach-:;d belong..:d to his judf,,nent-debtor and not to the a_pGllant. That tho apdllant dos not ho..Vd o.. cattle kraal or o.ny cattl~ at all. The appdla.nt w:i,s a,sk0d cs to why he did not 02.ll all thos0 people hi.> hc:.d clc:.ir:ied were those fron iihom h0 obt2.i110d thu five hs-2.d of cattl..J but he hcd no ,::xplc? ... '1ation at e.11 to give. \r This court concurs with the; decision of tho District Court in th2.t tho attc,ch.;;d cattl0 did not at all belong to the a 1 j)Gllo.nt. Th0 cattle bolong..,d to the res .. ,ondent 1 s judgment-debtor. The respondent was thorJfore entitled to cttach then. 11/7/91 'l1his uppc.::c.l f 8..ils oncl is accordingly lismissod with costs. nJ~ - -c ( R·IBIK.A) JUDGE Delivered in ch2.ri1bcrs this 11th dr..y of July 9 1 991 , c.nd in th.) presence of both p~ties, AT DGDO;-,!A 11 /7 /1 Court: ( R.J .L. RUlTIJiVIBIKA ) JUDGE Court of Appal but subject to: 2. Certification of a ?oint of llf'w• 3• tirai tation period. Notice in fourt8en J.o.ys. 1t< 0 ( R.J .L. RUI-i(Ti-'illiiCA) JUDGE .' ., AT .).Dm1.A 11 /7 /91 , ◄ ",;i, . · .. \ ' ,, l) ,, . • ;"; , 3 * I ,. • •· < : ,. :.-.: '.... Hec11 .. - •• ii 11llf.&ia: Mk+'rt '.4\·!l:R§/2 l r· . ¥. ~ . .. .:....a:.S, ,;j.j£ls..:,t:. ,# ' - ..