Jerald Kitumanga vs Ephraim Shayo (PC Civil Appeal No. 40 of 1990) [1991] TZHC 2380 (3 July 1991)

IN 'I'Hl!! '1IGH COURT O.B' T.Aj:-TZPJHA J:.:£. .. AHUSF.Ao PC CIVIL AH iiAL NC: o 40 OF 1990 (From the decision of the District Court of Arusha at i.rus::i.2. in Ci vi 1 Appeal liio. 4 of 1989) JERJUJD I{I TUI11JJ•! Gf:.. o o o o -, o o O o o o O O o O O O o o o Cl o o 0 o O o a e o o o e n -, O O O O O O O D O O J.FPELLANT , . . VERStrs· . . .EFHRtJr~:r SI-IAYO o o o o o o,,: o o o o., o t'I o -o o (' o o ... ~ e o () ') e,,. () o" one. o,. o o I) o o o o • oRESFOl'JD:El\TT • · · · J U :0 G .8 r: E N ,. This. is a secoi'1c:;. appeal from 11:rusha District Court Miscellaneous Civil Appeal lfoo. '4 of 1989 originally West Meru Primary Court Civj.l -Case Hoo 61 of 1987. ·In the primary coru·t t'..1e plaintiff Ephraim Shayq sued for recover~, of 2-':} acres of land from the defendant. si tu[1te at Moiva.:co Village in Arumeru lJistrict. The land is JL'phraim- ha;; .. o ·depci.Jed that on the 4 .6 01970 he bought the lend in dispute from one Jimon ·Bazil who te::;tified. for'the defendant as SU II · tor tl:,e sale .:-"tfcerncmt :t:xhi bit A. in the presence of two witnesses 8H II ''.ri[a.sumbo Tengia ,.:' .. nd. SM III Joseph Joachim,, · 1t that time tho deLmdant,, a grandson th0 s01lar Simon Bazil was about E'I years· old. Tl;.e plaintiff claims that he occur-ied and developed tho lancl from June 1970 1-mtil June 1So7 w:1en the dofondant started claimint; t:10 land saying that llc is the heir to the l;c:.n,::_ in dispute because it belon;'.,;ed to his late fe,,ther Jonas ··Ki tumga who c:;,/l. in August 1971 o The clcfondant denies tl18 clcim. He insisted il1 :i_B defence that the land in dispute belonged to his late father who plecll.,od it to the plaintiff for shs. 600/= wl:icl1 the plaintiff refused to c:.cce;'t who11; the defendant's mothe::r, SU II ElizabetJ.1 John, the widow of the late Jon2J3 Ki tumanga off crod. to redeem the pledged shamba in 1987 • ~1:he defendant called :::;u III .::>imon -Bazil 1:rho >..ad 2.llegedly solo t!1e portion of· land in disl:;utc to the plaintiff. SU III said th2-t hB only sold his respective piece of land to tho plaintiff and not tho d,3f0:i1da.nt •s pi.:,ce of land, tho land jn dispute. Tho two assessorSoo .. /2

••• 2 ... ') The two assessors who assisted the primary court entered judeement for the defendant thereby giving him the m·mership of the land in dispute. The trial magistra;t;e · gave a dissenting juo..gen1Emt but he was bovnd by the opinion of the majori, ty under section 7 of the lfiagistrate Couxts Act No .2 of 1984. The prim2Xy court dismissed the suit. The plai1·1:ciff did not appeal to the D:Lstrict Cour:t but the trial primary court m2:,gistrat0· forw·a:rded the record to the Distr.ict ·court. Following some kind of uuspocified rovision or inspection, the Senior i)istrict Magistrate marlo a Ordurw tl:.o subj0ct of tho present a:::-poal. Paragraph 5 of the Order ·of the matter ti tlecl I!'.iiscclleneous Civil Appeal Ko, 4 of 1989, -.-J.1creas in fact no appeal was lodged by d thcr party to t\c Sl1i-t, tlle Senior District lfJagistrete stated& "Jalada I1ilj_ limcletwa k:wangu kwa s:b8,b-v_ rrie.oni ·jja bald.mu na washa.uri y2w.1a:pin 6 ana l:.ivsro jalada limulctwa kwangu kv:-a : tnujibu "(,:'(3. f-0 .. igu le. 7 la .:,hePi a za I.:".aJ.12.kBina na t:Iahakimu. Act w 2/1984 ..• a . · To begin :dt!.l section 7 of Act Noe 2 of 1984, the Magistrates Courts Act has no· prov:i_s•ion requirin&, the primc.:xy court ma,eistrate to forward the case to the .uistrj_c-t Court where assessors - cliff er wj_ th the opinion of the trial 1e.gistrate. Bo j_-i; as it may the Senior District r-1agistrate then procead0d tb· uphold the dissenting judgment of tl10 trial maeistrate thereby quashing the majority opinion of the assessors ruicl G-ra:1ting judgement to the plaintiff. . ·' The dcfe11dant is ·aipealing ·against the Order of the District Court. lfir. Lobulu lcarnod advocate for the 2.r;ocllant filed a· t-rr:i:i;tcn submission criticizing tho D:i_strict Court for issuinc tho Order in question unilaterally ,-Ji thout giving 2, -hearit1g which omission contravenes t_he rules of naturl justice and Artie-le 13(6)(.a) of the Constitution- of the unr.i;·;a. R1~ublic of Tanzania. ' • • I He observed \h;_;c ·1.mder section 7 of the flfr:,gistrates Courts Act lfo. 2 of 1984 the primary court m2{,ristrate was by law b01:i:-1.d, b;y- _tho opinion of both assessors so ·the Dis·irict· Court erred in upsetting the decision of the -trial court.

u,·. ·-._ • 0 O· 3 ••• Mr. f4,ale le;:.'rned advocate for the respondent filed a 1-:ritten submission urgi:a,:; ·the court to uphold the decision of the ai,pellate District Court o~,rinc; to the strong evidonc0 o:c, record in sup::_)ort of the plaintiff 0 s case •.. Ie ad.vi sod the court to remit the case to the District Court under scct:i.on 22( 1) of the Magistra:tc Courts Act No. 2 of 1984 so that the parties to the case can be· heard on revision should the court find the OrJ.er of the District Court appealed against irree,,ula.r. The issue is ;,:}1other the Order app0aled. again·::it is sustainable in la't-1 • .Jection 7(1) and (2) of the Macistrates Courts Act lfo.2 of 1984 is tl-rn law applicablo in t}1is appeal. The section str,tos; 11 7(1) In ever;y· proceeding in the primary court tlw coUI't s-:.all sit with not less than two assessors. (2) All r:12.ttcrs in ·the primary cot,_rt including a finding in any issue, the f01GStion of adjourning tho h8arii:,, an application for bail, a question of ;uil t or innocence of a:.,1y accused purson, tho determination of sent011cc, t'.:to assessment of any m0113·tary award cl!ld ap .. qu<:istions and issues ·:::1atsoevor , in tho event o.f difference between· a magistrc.:tc <:ll1Cl the assessors o·r any of them, be doc id.Gd ,b.Y the votes of the ~naj<;?E_i,ty of the m§lisistra~~~-;~~.tl, ___ GE,~~sors p!:.£.~~:~pJ. ai"1d in the ev0nt of c.;.: cqu.ali ty of votes the ::1C,£;:'istrate shall have -tho casting vote in 2 .. dcb.-cion to tho delibortivo votc. 11 ... :•'• As obsc:rvoc earlier on, the two as::::ossors who conducted. tl.1c hocll'ing 1,ri th the primnry court magistrate gave concurring views dismissing the suit ·0.nd gi vine the ownrship of the suit lr..nd to the defendant as heir of his late fa.tl:.er Jonas Ki tumanga. In lo;;-:' the trial ma/;istrato was bound, unq0r scct:i.on 7(2) of thq Hagistr;:-;tes Courts Act No. 2 of 1984, ·d th tho majority view of both assessors l1is diffcrin[.§ with their decision notwithstanding. 11hat apnrt, •••••• /4

••• 4 That apart, nd. Jhcr po.rty, not even the plci;.i-ciff who was thu unsucc 0s sful :party, appealed ~~,,inst the decisio.n of t-he prime.ry c)Urt alJ.C1 yet the District Court ha.tc).1od Miscellcneous Gi vil A1")pe;l lio. · 4 of 1989, the subject of this appeal ou.t of the blues. . i,forse still the District Court did not give a hearing- to. -tl:e apr:,ollant despi to reversing the decision of the primary court rhich h.:i!. 1Joci'l passed in his favour. '.11hc Order of tho District Court is unlawful and unjust in all respcctse It is so Ortlorcd.o E.N. MUITJC, JUDGE. At Arusha this 3.7.1991. Appellant; tlro Lobulu for Respondent & I'lr. l.:t::.lc ~bsent but duly 1wtifi ed. ·ENM/JJM E.N. r:unuo JUDGE •. 3/7/1991. I hereby certify this to be a true copy of the original. \st•"/ (M.L.K. Kannonyele), DL3TRICT R.:!XlISTRAR 1 ARUSHA.