Theonestina Rwekanika vs Sylveri Mushuga (HC Civil Appeal No 43 of 1989) [1990] TZHC 477 (15 November 1990)

'"' v:. ! ' ' nr .--;:r-r.,

• •.• .J.!J ·-::1an COT:.:lT OF TAF, :;£-;:i:A U-7 < ~ ,e S..,, ~ AT ~r:JAN.3A I l L-- AI'PJliL1L'l'E JL"'RISDICTIOH IU:GTI 'coTl.'.L1 crn1 APP'.AL uo. 43 OJ? 1989 (From the decisio1 'of ·:;:,e· Dist:dct Court of :·1-tlrnba ,District at :.u2':0!'1a in Civil Cc1se ·1fo.25 of 1970 - Before ·3. K. N. 'l-iL 1 J'\mc-o,Esq.f :i)istrict }fagistrate) T:.IE0!~~1:r::11J.fl R:,n/A.I-JLCA l . ~ .. '. C e ,., Cl O ~ •• " : • 0 0 0 0 0 0 ') -~ ft , o do·~~ ~ o oAPF2L{·.:1 VERSUS . SYL.\iEIU 1S(;0lTIJG A "J , (; 0 :, ·• ~ ~ 0 0 ., 0 C .•• 0 0 0 , 0 ,., C ') 0 3 •• ;) , .., ~ " 0 Q O O ., 0 0 • 0 •• RESPOlf.D]Jf'i & JUDGMElJ 1 .r · lfu1JY.:SRA 2 J.: •rhis appeal a:rn::::e out of e:rncution proceer"'...iags. In Civil G,:i,se r'o.25/7O of tlie Resi::len.t I1a.rJistrate' s Court of ::1uJ.rnba t':e appellan-'i; won a contract suj,-i; agains'c the respondent. C:':.e suit concerned a coxl;ract · of sale of Plot .No,6 :'Ji:G.:oba township, the rcspon,.-:.ent was alleg0d ·i;o !.1.ave clisllonourecl his oblig,,:i;ion in refusing to trans:~ or -the plot to -;;.1.1,e / purchaser, the appella,.1t.. 1 .rhe matter ended 1 1 :; in t.::i.is Court's Ci-v-::.1 Appeal Wo.16/72 in wJ1ic) MfalilaJ, uphold -:.:e ·'.;:-ial court's decision ·t)rn.t tl.:e responclen-i; st.odd transfer tl:e plot ·,;o .;;:,e appellant. This w.:i.s on 3/1/74. It appet:.rs not\ing i;.,a.s done till in ·1989 1f11en t. 1 .e aIJJ)Cl.d,;1t (represented 1 .1y hc1 son) applied for eJ:ecutio!'l.. TJ.1e respon,·1.en-i; rcsL:;ted / tJ1e application c1.r[~!i,~i°'. · since t:e juC::.gment of -- .0 Jii;-;h 0ourt t':ines '.,H:l cl:an.::;ed, by =iu'bri.al 3/>;:::ec:.,ient tlle ve1,dor ( tl1e :::-eSl)OlFent) offered. to I'e:i:und t lle purc'1•,ce monr..1- ··'·o -:--e pu.rc 1 1ac•er (appr>l] --,-,t \ ----,cl rrd:G-in '•i" la.P' 1 .., J.-UO - .. v/l;y V ,,..... .. ... ~ _ , : .'-.. .... ·- J j '-1,,,t .. 1- .~ ' ., ,.--. •• i...t.11' Eoboczy called. any; wi·;neL-;:rns eJcept afficlavitr.: a,'!cl other doc1.:.:ieffl;s. :i 1 )w tTi2,l ma:;istrate roje.J'lied the applic:i.ton u.nd ,:;·-.is appeal 1-:us :)ro:2(n·:;:ocl. In re ,.d.i.ne- -1;:1e :..',Jcord I ;:im inclined ·o a(;cee 1-:i th ,t_ 1 e tr:i.c:,l ma:;istrate in many re;;1)eGts. First t;:.e purc:·,.z.-.ser (appellant) died vrit' 0 .cut leaving any 1r::.lls ,ui tten or oral. :'Ier ion who applied :;>n execution had no documents ;o support his c:.,s...:: e::x:ept the judgmes::t of tbis court dated D/1/74. The other Gi<le ;:;.rc-,.,ec: tlle jud:gment was no l0;1ger in force beccJ.uce ·:1;y- 1mr:;1.1.al aereement tbe pa,r-;;:i.o::; to -che contract hac.. terr.1ina.tcd it, the :reGpordent refunded the pm'c·.2.se money. In view of the fact that the pL'!.I'G':aGer (appellant's mot1·tor) r-:)fJained mum :i?ro,i1 ,:;:_e l J,. . ' J t r, ' - ' ' t ' d ( ,. _/1/7 A) ' . 11 1 ' , " ; 2.y i;LJ.e JU. cmen o:i.: ·li . .J.J.c cour · was passe on , / £ .;1 L1Cr cc·::! ;,:,.. would indicate she .\ac.l not'.,in 6 worrying >.sr a::01:i:;: t.\is plot. 11:.:cr,.r:1-se the appellant dare:l no·:; to apply ::or e:-,;:ecution c~·:cin(~ the lifeti;;10, o:~ ]1is rnother 11 he knew sl:e HoulJ. not ha·re suppo:c'licd. :,im, s1::.e t:ad al:2da.l\i •••e1epoc11,./2 ♦

I received her purchaGe mcn0y back. .7inally i·~ is th.<:: laor -:-:.at proceeding for e::;rncu-:;ion of tl:i.e decree s;io,,ll :-,e c:iornr.iericed wi·(;);in 12 years of' the judgil1e,1:;; htrt Ghe appeltant c ()Jllin GllC 0,l. the .proc eeclings 15 yen.rs of thi's court's cl.:.te of judgment, ii; was ti1;1e barred &"ld no reason uas given 'IT:y ·:(,e action was not coil1!11e::nced. in time. 1:11°0L1 t),.e Tcaso.1s sta·i;ed a;:iovc I find. the trial_ maeistre:i;o :::·ie;-.>.tly rE:jec·,-,0cL t1rn application lilcc :1iiil I dismiss the appr:,'tl 1ri·ch costs. r I AT I,f.7.Ap;;A 15{11½- ' / .., J: 0 11· ... DISTJ.Icl PJBGIG'.?RA,R .. / . i ,• : : ; A. MUHYERA JTJDGE