Byuna Village Chairman vs Magendo Gimbuya (HC Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1988) [1990] TZHC 216 (7 December 1990)

"f:-VC CI\fIL ,,,.- .. ·E,,.L NC. 10 or 1988 ( C:"IG.IN.,.,L 3HhL-DI DI::iTlUCT COUhT ) ) I ·; Versus tr.i;-.GB.:1-JDC GIL3UY,- •• e •••••• .......... , ••••• , •• i1.ESPONDLNT J U !) G :t,·;, E N T. -•··· --- ... "---·--- ......... .., £fili,._ ;I_._ In S£.rir::,c:i District Ccurt the .respondent, Magendo C·\ r.l. Gimbuya ,. S:i.;:;c the appellant, \3yuna Village Chairman, for recoTcry of a grir:u:.r~:;:, macline or :i_Jos:.10 mill. The trial court founr. fo'r the resJon0nt, and the apellnt nuw aμpeals to this court. The bt;C1 6 round of t:.a ,-tispute is, tb,tt in Juno 1981 the Go--re..: rnment l;:;,unc:;a :-) an operti~:n which came to be known as "0perut"ion ?achines 11 wi:?.ica. nimec nt n:;-tic,nalizing all ginding machines from individuls =t puttin t~~m in tc hunds of villages for •he benefit of 11. In the course of tlc:.i.t 11 0per.ation" tho respondent's grinr1tng r:.ill .::.t Byuna Vil1nge w:;s n.:1tiorn.1lizon unc:1 han('ecl to the vilL'lge 1-.ut::-c..:;;ity. The vilL.-1r:e was to compensate the responrent the valu-3 of." t~::ie machine., TJ.1~ machine w,\S assessec. at Shs.40, 76fJ/:=.. The vilLq:_;-3, L:nrnver, di(: net 1~.ave t}rn money to pay the 'rgree(l compensS1-tic.:-"' So it 1u1s .:i.sr,?:c~ betwocn the parties thai the villag8 wct:7-..:' t::::ke the m.'..lci'.".ine on ere di t a-n~ woulr. be paying for it by inst2lrnents fro~ procedG earned from its use. To ccine 1 however, broke doubt after only six monthst an~ so t8 villFe was enble to continue paying the instulmcnts -·•j Apparently, }t was the S''.:•i;.ft th.'lt hncl beEm br_oken.. The V-ill.tge Authority t9= approached the responfcnt anrl asked him to help to repir t0 ~~cine by buying~ now shaft •. The responent considered tb.-s but fet:.1c"! i -f; unwise bdC3USO that would h..lV amo_mted to a nll tis is'nut in isute. In orcer to recover his mony from t h•.:i vil.L. ;;e 1 tli1;1 -; r~s,: /nc: :::nt .bought , .. mother rtt..lchine - the one . ' ' '' ' ' in d~~pute ~ for·hsl 80,000/= 1 ud _us idtvidμals wre .not ltowed :to opcrc.t .) ,Sl: inc1.ing milcl'::in0s in tr:o area 1 tho rospon1.hmt offered to len to to viflage tnt fficbineq The idea s th thp vilage oulc op:)r,:u the m.::>.ch.n:: o'! ½e 1 nlf of ·q.10 · repondept -hp wou+cl )· • ! , . •I. p-r- t SJ>C ns ibL.i f o:r u1.:i' running costs• T're' ,repQpccnt w-ouir't : •. -~ ,/2,

2 t-urn ,'be aole to receive his atall,'e'<'I instul.ments front -the pro-eee&s until:- the debt.tor the f'!rst machine w;;is tully pnid. That ws ta raspon~•ni•s case. ,. I _In_cr bcut Octobr, l9b2,· the prties ·prepared tha aiμnts'cf·te business f tte second machines it was:-fund . :: . .·· ; ·, ' . t,h~}, te r.1cney l;'C~~Yt,H. by t::e responnen ''from the seeofld J;laGhi.ne -ti. 1. ,·., i:' "I'.·•- .. ·. . . " ·. ! . ' . . . bad .mor~· tr-tn. S&'ttl.ed,:ha CiObt· for :the fir.st m,,chinc pnr, so a f?UUL, of $h~~ 8j,730/=, Whioiwz,s :cxcass 1 i·shoulcf be. pai to the1vi).las;e

• ,.. ' . ' · ·a.n~ the· re,monr~,:mt woul.d tl:.un · tak'e away hi,.& machine. , then the. reeponden~ proposed this Arrnnsernnt to tho illago Authority 1 . thy tl~ lH;t:: th .. t tboy WUlc' cont-'et tb Dis tri c t ... ,COrmn:i..s.sioner fit st. · So· ti ... ,J ±iiagti Authrity ,tt-to 41 lettor to the Oiatrtct. Comrnis·siOncr' tit th.:a t .. 1\J·tio%',· wlilch t• thb' eti'ntra. i · t l·w dispute betwe"m t:~~: p.:..rti,1•• the villago J.Uthoritt •1.:.litt.d tih:-,t irl- il.ti ~ . .; ' . ng:rer.,ant fOJ.' sale, the r:::iaonent. ha«' .eolt4 them th~ second mucllir-r aiao Qn"' t:--"-t tcy ~~c pic! him a total of Shs .,124 1 490/70 :for both m•chinrtlh HS it . turno out f no •ucb aJcHl!f(Jflt (1xi.ste c .for the .;.,,._c·ond ""'"··c'···i ·ict- g "-'" . JJ,low', u .. -.... ..... • ..... Hen·c-a t:: '-3 iluit. f.he ie'artt<l tr'iul senior roslent mnii8trut~ a• h.e . than w..:is, curetully ev:aluAtoc' th~ evidonce <1bc' was satisfied tt,at tb.:,r..:i w;:;,s no 4gre..,pent t>! s.4le for the aoeond machine 1 ah<"' thAt tho sum of Sh.s.83,730/70 wa.a n'o more than un ovo:rpZ1yr;ont :for the first mac:::ino. l u~ of ~~e sume opinion •. Nowhere in any of tt•c docurcnts pro<luc-ec :::.z oxh:ibits by t·tu prtics is it shown that thorfl w<ls an agre0m02Tt :for sle for t ... -:i s:.:cond m.:ichin0.. I think th.lt the '1illJ.g~ 1-mt;;1c:r-ity trio<i tc t..:::i:rn dv..inta.ge of the respondent's desiro to b:) p::.ic for t;-·0 fi.rst me.chino" E":ything tht.tt hac to do with tt.c trnsctions_of t8 first cchine wos in writing~ Why shoulc~ .:1n a.grec>ment for sc.lo of the i:,econd rnn.chine not enst 7 · ·B.,.-en t!:1'3 lott z,r written by t~·:o District. Devolopnent. Director .... ( b:i.l)i t f • "C'') •uggests th .. t they were tnlkinr abo.ut the first, maehine u!1cl t>3 t'flbt relator, tharato und not t!,e second m..ichino. Jt'or tJ.:.:J 0 8 reuso..ns. I en see no reason for :lnteri'ering with the findinGs ~~ fnt by tjd learnc~ trial mngistrato, which were •arsaly bse on the creibility of witnesses. ,ln t"·.e rormlt 1 this an-,-:ienl f:.:dls un so is hereby with costs.· ·· ·· , ·I ,; 0 ~ fillfl/J{/2lift Tabor/i t: .,,. ----- __ 7· th ol - .. ,- .. _;;,,;...;; ' Partie' \· ' JUDGE. , / /