Paulo Makuno vs Matangajo Mahondela (PC Civil Appeal No. 222 of 1989) [1990] TZHC 479 (17 November 1990)

;:,£KULE, J. "IN THE HIGH CJU1iT OF T1,NZJ-,.NI.n ,-1.T hvtnNZA ( i?C) CIVIL At'PEAL Nu. 222 OF 1989 (Ft.:im the -Jecisi .m ')f the District C:)urt of 1•1 . .1;u, · District dt agu in Civil .nopedl No. 61 of 1989. Before J. J. hachumu Esq. District i•1agistrate) l?AUT.O i'!J'\KUNO •.• ••••••••••• D. • • • • •• • • • • • Af>i--ELLHNT Versus i"i.ttTANGAJO iv.1.kr:lONDELi\ • ............ • •••• , •• RE.;;t10N!JE11!T JUDGhENT The ·appt:lla:'nt's (.t?uul:; 1"1ak.:>n-) crps were iistr.)y2i '.)y th, rcs;;,)nint 1 s h .:-:.is of cattle. The res;)onient' s cattle entere1 the a;pellantts shum1:.,a ani grnze1 on his ::rJps. Ani in fact, the a:)PE:lLmt :-.n th8 res, .... m lent partici3tei in iri vin0 .:)Ut the cattle fr:;m th-:! shamba.. The muttE:r was taken bef0re th eliers ani ten cell ld.:i•-1..:irs of the 2ra. ni at hat meting the rsonient, Matdn;azo Mohnzcl2, acc~~toi li:::i::iility ani which was .:1t assesse'i at two h..:i-ls :;f Cdttle, 6 .:·)c:ts .:::,·11 Shs. 1000/ =• It WJUl i a1);'.)ear the iamase to the apellc1_nts cr;)j)S w,:-ts e.onsi1e::r.able. The res;.)onient duly paid the assesse1 liability i.1S foresai•i. H.)wever, the rs 1 Jon1ent lcJter learnt thut s.:ime p1:!1ple h2d b8tzten his h8rsmon an1 as a result he (hrisboy) aniune1 his herd. And J ',f(.,.~ -1..A,1 th:::it, this is whot le1 his cattle to rif!J!/i1y into the a:.,pellant\s sham)Ja 2in-i cause the 1amage1 to his cr0ps. He thercfure conten1e1 that thu j)eople Whu beat his her1sboy sh~,uli have been the ones t::) c.)mpen.snte th12 ai)pellant for his -\amage-1 cr..;ps; He theref::ire fil ::=i a suit in the: Kchnora t-rimary Court against the a)pellant claiming bnck his twc;. hd3.ds of c:.:ttle, 6 g•.)ats ani Shs .. 1000/= thc1t he ha1 pai,1 to the ai';:-..::ll.:mt 9 :is h wns n.)t liable. Th~ 1ecisiwn of th~ trial CJurt was not an easy t0 fll0w. Th 1st 2.ssBsscr for- exam,)le, seem,d to have sai1 that since the res;,:.)ndent hai .:.:-mitte::l lia:Jility - he ha1 not rna:ie out his case vn the other h::..n-1, th"' 2ni assessor was more specific an1 ori nei that th:: reSJ0i1:ent "s ;:,r~~x:.rty which he harJ. pai1 t·:) the rs~Joni.ent be returnei. t.) him ,s he wns not liable. The pe,)ple whu bs:=ut his hr.,i'sb::iy were the ;ne: liable. The trial Magistrate WilS also of the view that the.? ,..-:::Si_),mcl-:mt had provud his case, he was not liable.

I t, , 4 I ., ' 2 T 1 h.: triol 1·1cts;istrc.1te hJw..;ver went -.:.n t:..i, prJpuse th)t th" r,s:_•oi1ent c-.:.ul.! h:ive his· prJiJ2r.ty retur.nd t,, him by the a;-) 1 Jell::rnt' :)r ·h:.: C,)Ul~ choose tc.: i;o aft..r the peupl e who '.J1:"..:.1t his hersb,:..iy ah1 ci ;:1:i.m · t,/ :)I.! r~-;:funne1 whot he h3s a.lreaiy p.J.i.1 tu the a.,i21lant.. - ii.n1 it left the: m::o.:ttr thrc. ,_+..,. • , Th;J _:1;_:;Jcll ant was ac:;grievei by this iecision anj he a ?.">:::?al 2i t• th. District Court of .!'130u Distric at l'Ia-;u. The apell:3te District Court :-Jisrniss,.d the a;Jpellant' s a ·ipeal 'in a •iecisLJn_ whose t:.:mclusion is, with rE.:s;_J.::.ct 3.lso 1i.ffic:ult .tu f01low.. Both partis appe3rei in persn at the hearing uf this UJJLal. Th.rc is n.J ·iispute in this case ·th,.1t the ·res "ion1ent''s hea.1 ,:.,f c.::;ttl<..! • 0.estroyei the appellant's crops.. 1n1 ·th.:-it ·res:)onient aimittc1 li::ibility ond accepte,i the quantum o·f i-lomages or cumpensation the1t w.:.1s i.':ssz::ss0d t th El1ers Counsel. The ccntentious issue is., wh1:thr or not the res7,on1ent w,:s in this ens( li:.:'lble t;:.; · C-.Jmpensate -the aiJpellant or the people who ,:1.r-: nll8god . '=.... ' )'-. . ',I. ,.. • • • • ' • t., .... - • -~ f i• .. - • .... ~ to have beaten his. her·1sboy, thus· caus~ ng him to aban:1,on ½}is en ttl c. I . ·~ . - .~ .,. : :" - ~ .:: . ; hnve c:.;nsiiere1 this• issue, an-i I om of the :::iettle1 Jpini .. .m th::-i:: the res~,,,oni.ent is the one t,) C.)mpensate the responient for his dcmc:s-ud , crps. It is his cattle which entere1 the shamba an1· 1estroy0d the crops. 11.nd if the reslwnient hai tenable claim against a third pc::rty i.t:. the pe0ple who .:=ire ::illegc-·l to have _beaten-his her1Sb•JY it wr;s fr him tc., go after such such thiri p-:irty an-1 seek re1ress f•:Jr the c .. ,m;)ens1ticn h~ h;)c\ .)aid .:rn-1 not in my vit::w the :ippellant. ' for if the ap;)ellant ha1 ins ti tute1 a suit in court, clai-min<; c0m 1 J,,ms.Jtion fr . .)tn the r2S)Onient, the res,,')onient w0ul i h3-,·e b"'n ;.;l:ltitlerl t,) ar?iJlY to make the persons who re allege'i to h.:1ve ;Jc:\tcn \ his her1sb,>y _ a thir1 party to the suit o n1 not the 3:)pepant. I w0ul-i -not_ therefore hesi tute t:) allow this appeal. Emel tht decisions 0f the two 1 :)Wer Curt which apoear to say that th:;.; rs.:s ::,n 2cnt ·, is not liable to C,)mpensate, the ·a,Jpellant fvr his iamage:i cruj)S c'.r-:.: horeby set asi1e. The res,)on1ent is the ::me to compensate the a;);)t::l'l:.nt. hnd in my view since the responient hari arimitte_1 li 0 1bility an-\ -;::id th2 a,pellant, the matter enis tht!re as far as tnese two a.re C...;ncr,1.c-d. The r1:.;s,,0n1ent is at liberty if he thinks he hns a tenable c12im ::,c;·2inst the.! pzrs0ns he claims bt:_t 1:lis her1sbuy to go after thm for rr1_r,.::ss. Apeul all 0'1ed with costs. W• H • .SEKULE JUDGE 17/11/1990

. ..i :: .. •··--. . •' is t :J bl:! t-0 0'-' "' t·ea.-:l .J ,., i.. . ,:,.. .. :i.J ~ ·'"'"' ... ,,J,-' ,It ·.. f1 .. . , 1_!< ·,.I . . ..... ·,,r,•