John Sylidion vs Traseas Thadeo (PC Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1989) [1990] TZHC 503 (30 November 1990)

,, !.T Mti;UTZA i..F FELLI.TE Ju'RI s:JI CTIOIJ (re) CIIlL ;2:;:c;.1 l}'.)4 20 CF 1989 (Fron tJ.10 decision 0f t~:.o Tistrict Court ,:,f Bulrn1n, .. }",is·riot at i3ukoba in Civil .'1.pponl lTo,28 of 1988 - Defore L. H. n. Ircovonco,Esq:-•, :)iatrict m.[!istr.'.1tc one\ Ori,r:;inol ICt1:foroi-o Prioary Court Civil Co.so Ho.29 of 198l) JOID·T SYLl')ICH • ••• ,, ••• ., ., ••••• • • •••• , • • • • ••••••••••••• • ••• •• • .'i.Pr:mt.L;'JJT vm.sus TRlSil:..S T:I;.;JEO • • ••••• • ••• , • , •••• , • • •••••••••••• •. • • • ••••• ,. .RESPOlTJEHT J U D G M E N. T The rcspon,.lont wr.,s ·t:10 plcintiff in t:10 trb .. l, he suo:L tho ap~,olla.nt for recovery o. sJ.:or1ba ho alloGccl t:i.o lc:ttcr tn.c:l occupied by force, It was his case "'lihat J:.o :-:.ad bought th0 sui·c s!:.ODba fron one Yusuf Kashindo, ho clicl not say w!:cn, sor.1oti::10 ill 1987 tho O.lJi">Ollant occu:1iccl it, !20 t::orcforo filed tl:is suit. In his clofcncc tl'..o appellant too sctlc1. he crot t12,t .-.r.;·:;1a. fr··:n tl:is sane nan Ynstl.f., · The rospon'lon-'t.;/ plaintiff called two wi"'Gncssos who supported his case, t1.1c appcll::-n-'li Cc'..lled one wi tnoss also supportocl l::.is ca.so. The trinl court visi toe. -'.;ho s1anba ;:incl clrew a sl:etc: :JIM. In th0 cn·l t!·.o court found both parties bour-;-J.::~ pieces 0f she1.11a fr--.1r..1 tt.e sar.10 vendor, Yusuf I~ns!~ini:o, r .. ml ?'.cc!iainer: 1 .. te l101:11r:e,ry, The 00.Wt f\1it,er fo,\11c1 tl~~ 2fpell,<¥!1; was , +1-.. l . . t... r--b , , . ·• , +1 , J. t . t t... ✓....., •• w,fl'l XL§ own ~,aL .. ?v 8JlC. C.l.SiHe?JqC.., 1!:~9 rc!3pQrj.: ~q111; s SU1 , .. ,e sμccoss.i: l-1 .. .dy ppcalod to th@ 7listrpt Cqig-t 1 ~n 'Ul.'ll t:q ppoUc¥-rt 1:ircitp,.-i:t; th;i.;:i r..ppoc..J.. ~- reacli.μc- tl:.g roco:r,cl§ I f:i. '!;he lcarngd J;:j..si;ric"t; 1-1ngi$trr..·o Jk1,t1 cleqiclocl ijo take ac1.rli tionc:w. ovi-:lenee, thQ respoμclcnt called three wi-'mcsscs whq.c tb.1; appo]..l:>.nt 02..llc:l two. Th Jistrict M..::,(;i.str0te hclicvccl -'i;):o fgfJpon,font' s siclc and cll,Jwec1.. tl:o appeal. As f o.:r as I know add.i tionc..1 gvi,.len,co is t2J,;:on in c-rclor ta clarify o. fa.ct not clarifiol in the trial· Mel. that a just rlcci$ion c[nl1ot ho ~i vccl at if t::o ft1,0t roi:w,ins u,nGl,?l,'if:i,ocl. A'lcli tioncl. ovi1onco is, not orclercC:' .. in orilcr to prop up a w@wt GD..SO cf a. party. In -t;J::is case it was a cor.,plde retrial in tho '.!?illtrict Court, but -"i;l;.c Dis·i;rict Mc..-3istrn,te clicl no·t inclicGte in the rccorcl w)~ioh point he wn.ntccl -to clo..rify by r...ldi tioncl ovi:.1oncc. I clf.1 now 2.t a l( s wl:;.ich one is t>.o tri;-.1 c·.,urt, tl:o Pri □ 2..r.y or t!-.o :::istrict Court? In 17!.y view tLe f'riDe.ry CDurt had ascertaino:1. t.e b01.m·-\J:'Y between -'Gho pa,rtios :w visi tinG' t>o disputed si to, tho Jis·i;rict C'.Jurt did n:1t ::1.o so •.

2 Tm:s b6in 0 ·t10 case tl:o j1..1c1...,J0cnt ')f t!:e trin.l l'rii"1J C0urt is to prcvcil. I allow tb.c· r,ppcc.i, set. b.sido tl·.c 1.ocicion of -t~e ·1istrict Court c.nc1 restore t!,Jtt of .. -'~l:.0 Ka.tcroro Fri □ acy-·c0urt with·costs. __ ,,,,••-

• •. J<r • ~ .J{ ~ :-::-· f.T ?.TIT :JIZli. ·--(SGD) ... F o :.. • liUlIYE..11.i. 30L11/9,o~ JIJJGE. --:-;:...· " > ' ' \ I IIEREf3Y CERTIFY 'ITJ.A.T ·oos IS A (':';;E COI·Y·OF' T'JE C:UGI:~AL \ .. - ;I~~~TRAll tIWAITZA • rf(lf{l(( . .J.,. :,. ~ .: ,,