Shoma Ng'wela vs Mayeka Machiya (PC Civil Appeal No. 42 of 1989) [1990] TZHC 480 (20 November 1990)

• i - CHIMA, J. IN TEE HIGH COURT OF TlJTZ.tJiU 1i!r TiORt .. (PC) · CIVIL 1..PPEJ.L. 'NO .42 OF 1989. · Versus MJ..YEI(l .. 'HLCBIYA1 •••••• 0 ••• 0 0 •• ~ ••••• ·• 0 ~ · ••••• RESPONDEl J U D G E M, E N T Tho proceedings in both the prinlcZY oou:rt o.nd 'the district cc ·u.rt wore rlddlod with prooodural irr12gularit.iQS which. .ou)minato4 ·in .oe:;Jfusi,o~ , t happened? .: . In Sbitzy-anga urban pr:Lriary court t the present appclle.nt• Sb.ama .. lig'wal:at sUod -I.ho presont rosJ)Ol1dont 1 Iokzl. a.; for l'oOOVGJ."Y -0£ a sl:uut":)o.. J.t the end of tho .tri, the two gentlemen asscosors 1iho sat with tho loa.ruod. mastr.:!.to took the viow · ·liJ.1.at the sh:'".ffiba in rlisputo be clfficl~ oquclly bot1-10cn t;.10' pc'.l'tios. The learned. Bagistl'r'.to dissented and iouediat.cJ.y me.de un ortler to tho effect that tho record be sent to tho. s.onior cliatrict ~st.r-a:to. "to o..'11co n. cli>oision in the matter." "- .. Folloi·ling that on1or, rcvisional pro·ccedings were commonccd in -~11.G district court, and tho senior district ~gi~~'l;o OM.G tho £11(:;lid.!ltfi/ roviaioncl ordor s .. , 0 1.ftor going through the evidence recorded in tho l01wr court, I ara of tho s.gJ.10 views tha:'c tho ovidcnco ticlcos cloD,I' that the shnraba belongs to :the plcintiff I accordingly wnrd him (SIC)· tb,0 s2.1Jo as she clcimed. _It is so ordered. tf Surprisingly, tho dofcndnnt ( tho present rosporulent) wa'S allav,cd to appoal to the SelilO district court challenging wha.t is scid to be "the findings of the lOi·ror courJLi• 11 T1.w.c lce.Xncd senior district n'"-gistr,.tc hcc'.l"d. irtho appeal. tt J.n his 1 ljuclgocnt, 0 ho st<?otcd. "This case car.10 hero for' revision purjjosc after the trie.l gisttc and his honourable assessors had . ,•• ,• . hold di'ffcront vious. In that xov-ision I purported to concur with tho views. of tho ·tri0l magistrate but the trfal Ilstratc quoted rnfu>.iwn. vthich noant plaintiff•

In th:j.s :j;'cgnrd. 1 thq 41,p.i;>ollanj; >Jf.'..S right to appeal. since I conf'Usod tho issue by wrongly quoting tho trial raagistrato. 1 Actually I wentcd to concur with tho .. trial r:ir..i::,stratc by quoting hi.ii ·tlu,t tho shainbc1 in quosti;n do '(sic) belong to tho defendant. Tho ·· .. error is now rectified hence I allow this appeal with each party bom-i11g bis/her own costs.; .Jppcal allowod. 11 To ste.rt with, I n.m · inclined to think that tho 102.r:rtcd trial :.:ic ✓ gistrate was i8norc.nt .of tho proocduxal pvisions_ rcgaxdi.ng judgments in 1,rii:18.XY cou.rts. Thesa--pl."OV'i.siotis arc to be found in Rules 3 o,nd 4 of tho J,hgistrats I Courts (Prir.1i.ry Courts) ( Juclgrncn-t of Court) Tolles 19/)7 • · ' _____ Jrula 3 of those Rules provides as follovis: ---- - . ,._" ,,··. ''3• ( 1 ) Whore in e,ny proceedings tho court '116.s hoa:rd all tho evidence or matters port- ·--- - ainig i;o the issue to be dot6roin0d by tho court, Jliho nagistr2..tc shall proccod to consult wi t.!1 the assessors ·present, with the view of roaching a decision of tho court. (2) .If all ti10. r.1cnb0rs of tho court e,groc on one I docision 1 the raagistrctc shall proceed to recp.rd tho c1ocision or judgnont of tho court which ·:shall bo signed by all the o.otibc;rs." Rulo 4 provides as follows1 'I.. ... , tt4. ( f) Whore niter con$Ul tation in accordance with Rulo 3 the issue is clote:rcdned by the vote of tho r.10..jori ty, the map,is-tr2-t~ · ::,hail proceed to_ recol'(l tho clccision or ju .. l.gnent of tho najori ty ·- which sho11 be sig11.od by tho assenting nenbers . of the Court,, (2) The dissenting ncmber of the court shall give,. . . a bri0f st~tccont specifying findings_ of fa.et ..ni w, his decision on the issue and tho reasons for-it. (3) The brief sttcoent referred to in sub-rule (2) 'of tllis· Rule sk.1.ll be roorc.lod by tho mc.gistrD.to ir:.1!-:iedictely below the clocision or judgiuont of of the majority ~n:1 shnll be si&,nod by the dissenting member." ••••• /3

PC -3- In tho instnnt cc>,so 1 tho fore going provisions were not conpliod. with by the loa.rned trial ngistrato : n.nd those provisions arc r.1encl..·1tory o · The learned trial raagistrate ought to have rocordod tho judgr.1ent of the r:1ajori ty • T1..iorco.fter he should havo roe orclod his dissenting d0cisiono There the mo.ttor shoulc.l have ros.ted. Thero was ' no roe.son for sending th0 record to the district court for the district court "to nclrn a clecisiono 11 The trial court shoulcl lrnvc loft it to wy of t2c pl'i.I'tics aggricrvccl by the- decision of ·t;he me.jority to appcn.l to the district CO'.u-t. On the part of the clistrict court e even assuLti.ng,· which .is doubt-) 1 111, comt ' that the clistrictLpropcrly rulmittcd the matter to revision tho rovis :.,Jru:i.1 order dealt with substantive no..tfors in the c2.se and deterr:ri.ncd then ·io a finality• Hr1.ving dono sc ;1 in l"JY hunblc opinion, the rlistriot court b· icano unctus officio in so far as the rights of the pc..rtios were concornocl.; I-'i: should not, thoref oro f hc.ve ac.lni -btod an appeal to i tsclf in respect o:f '. tho . saoe issues it hP..c.l offcctivoly c'nl conclusively dealt with in the rovis.onal order. Incidentally, since no judg,uont of the najority was roco:rdcd 0: 1 preparecl by th0 trial court, -1.J.erc was, strictly spealdng, no judgmcnJG :'.;o o.ppoal againstt1 Tho only lik".."Gter th,......,t could properly have been the sub { ct of an appoc1l tU:t.s tho revisional order• nnd such an appeal should have 1:.,,3n filed ' in tho Hi@l Courto In shorJc, since tho district court hod dociclcd the substantive mo;l;·il.rs in the case to .a fino.li ty in the rcvisionc.l ordort rJXJY appeal to it fror '. the trie,l co1..1.I't was inconpctonto The pn.rty who W,;,S aggrieved with the n vi- sina.l order ought to have boon advised to c.ppenl to this court. The result of these blunclers by both courts below is the.tit canno-t· be safcl;y' said th::..t justice WM done and was soon to have boon <10110. In .. :zy- view, the chaotic . ..si.tuation caused by those blunders resulted in a f'E'.ilt1tc of justice, 2.11Cl the si tu2.;l;ion cnnnot 1 in tW opinion, be put right other t:.mn by an order for a ro-tril For those reasons, this appeal succeeds. 111 proceedings in both r,ourts below o.ro hereby quash.eel, 2.ncl it is hereby ordered th..1.t tho case be tri l(1 de novo in the pri □ o..ry co1..1.rt before a different ri.1.1.strato and a differ i:.1t sot of assessors. The plaintiff shall not bo required ,.,,----.- .. ~ to p2 fees age,i; for the filing of"'·Ui.& sui&.':."'Each party nl1e,ll bear his/her 1 /fr~~ '~\ /llthvtu own costs in thj t court •.. ' {-. \ . / 7 B. D. CHIPETJ~ '; .,.; ,,\ / :·· i . ·~ . . .. : , .• JUDGE T1J3ORl~ . ., / / -------= ___ / 20th Novcnbcr, 1990 Parties absent e I \ ,..