africa.lawBeta
SearchAsk AICollectionsJudgesCompareMemo
africa.law

Free access to African legal information. Legislation, case law, and regulatory documents from across the continent.

Resources

  • Legislation
  • Gazettes
  • Jurisdictions

Developers

  • API Documentation
  • Bulk Downloads
  • Data Sources
  • GitHub

Company

  • About
  • Contact
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy

Jurisdictions

  • All jurisdictions →

© 2026 africa.law by Bhala. Open legal information for Africa.

Aggregating legal information from official government publications and public legal databases across the continent.

Back to search
Case Law[1990] TZHC 315Tanzania

Mais Ndaki vs Masubi Mayombelwa (PC. Civil Appeal No. 65 of 1990) [1990] TZHC 315 (14 November 1990)

High Court of Tanzania

Judgment

·l+.-f, 1 \ . j )ovv SEKULE 1 J. IN THE HIGH COURT uF TrtNZrtNIJ\ 1-\T f'MhNZA ( l?C).· CIVIL hl:'Bi-..!, Nu. 65 OF 1990 ' (Fr::,m the iecisi:.m :.;f the District CcJurt ·Jf 1v1agu District at l'-'1agu in Civil ppe.31 No. 1 of 1989. B.::f,.:,re J. J. Nachumu Esq. snior District iviagistrcte)" ••••••••••••••••••••••••• Al?i'ELLi-1.NT Versus e •• e e e e e e • • e • 0 • a O ♦ • RESPONDENT JUOGl'-iENT Tht:: r-c::s;;:_;n ent, hc.1subi ft.c1g-.:mbelwa sue; the a):c>elL,nt in the Igal ukiro f'rimary C;urt f;..r Shs .17, 628/20. He allege-I in thdt this w.::is v:u ua ,;f his cr1...)S which wre iestroy(d by the a,)J..)ellant 's heai :;f ca ttl,,=. It WuS th:=: CiJSe fJr the reS,Y)O·i-=:nt ut th8 Q'Lil th..:Jt .JO thd 2n-t ;:.,r 3r1 of ,pril 1988, in the morning he went t:;, his shamb<1 ani f .)Un·i his cr0ps ha-1 bl:en 1estroyd or edten. He ani w. 2 the·n tr.:1ce·1 the h J;)fm2rks an-1 thS8 lid t,..., the appellctnt 1 s c0w she1. This thf'rcfure left nJ i;,.,ubt to him thClt it is the a:,pellant 's cattle th-.1t ha 1 iestruyei ..:>r eat.;n his cr·.:.ips. A Bwana shambu wcts Culled an1 that he saw the iestryei r-ips. H1: aivise1 the., ;;,arties _tu rc.:.incile ani amicably settle the m-:1tter. Ti1e partie::s how..::vcr :li,i n.:.>t a<;rE:e :.-in·i a settlement was thr<::fJre n•.:lt r .. ..lch,:.de reached Later the matter apj_)earei to hc3veLth12 war1 rHjricul tural I Offier wh, 1e an assassmnt 0f the value of the icstrJyc1 cr0ps ani thrftdr . mt wrot,e a l:.=tt-,;r tc..; the trial rimary Cuurt in whic:h h p)inte:1Ltht: v.iluc uf the 1£:stre>yvi c:r:.-ps cis being Shs.17,628/20 ani this became the b.lsis of the reSJOnJent's claim. It w0u1 -::1 h . .:iwever a pp ear thu t this particular agricultural of fj.c .::r WdS n.:.>t Ccll4 t testify at the tricil. ·rhe ui_-'i)ell"::mt, -1enie1 at the tril11 that his he..tiS uf Cdttl e were inv'.,lve:d. The tri2l C:..urt after iue c ... msi ierati JO 0f the l?Vi ience thot w:is .-~~:Jue:.. . .::: of by b-:>th )iJ.rti1;s, was£the unanimous opini;)n that the eviience .:i-\iuce1 ·-11:1 nvt est..:iblish it was the a,->pellctnt's cattle that hai enter1 th-= ..:s,::>ou.ie::t"i!ts shamba an·l that the value of tht: iamage1 cr.:>ps wais al sw nut as'Jrtain:.;;d

  • ~ . ~ cis h. ,rBwnna Sharnba" who maie the eYaluti,.)n wa nut calle1 t,; tt?stify. · ·· -~-iJs:.:iun""!enr was-· aggri('?ve--arrl ·dppeoh!-1 -to e--District Cvurt of Na- ~Lstrict an1 his appr.:al was successful hence this ai)peal 1.>y th<.:: . I ( \ .. -

' 2 Both )::irties app,.:Jrei in ,)•.:rs...:,n as· the hear"in(] of the 3!_l-J-::!.:.l. I h.:-:v-c: cureful ly perusei the 12vi ience the p.:::irties a--:l ·tucei :1t th trial. Thrc ure two impurtunt issues that wcr-2 ,up,:!n, for _c-msi i 2rwtL:11 n.ni thL:se were, firstly whther it wc:is inieei the ai,?pellant. 1 s h1.;::-1.s -f / cdttlE, thZJt straye1 intu--the responient's shambc1- · J-\ni ,sec·.mily wh-.t ·: . •· Thi;;re is otherwise no -1oubt in. my view ani on the ev1 ·rencc - utl 1uccd • . ! . ' th.J. t th2 r..:S)Oient I S cr.,-.;;ps were i..9magei • Bi.it the two. issues pos...:d . ). . : ·. ,., . .. abJv:::: w.::r:";;! the crucial :.mes f:n. ·-J..etrniinfn9 tlf ap 1 )fl!lL:lnt 's lL.1!:>ility Ll .. · .. the h-)ofm::.rks an1 that these le1 t;) the hJme stea-1 or r.:.1ther the 1.....JW sh,.:.::l of the.·app·llant. Thes were the only twu impor-t::1nt witnc.:sst.;S I JO this issue. {, , :-1 ·, v.\ /- I hew·.- {r{·r,efre cl.,?sely eaminei their rSpoi:cti ve cvi ieOC,i; on this t::) issue. ,1.n-i 11:: w0uli apeor t.- me, while the n:!s;:Jnient seemsLst,:t": c>nclusivdy th,Jt the i.'ii.)pellant's cattlE= w;re invlvei in t.::it/s·tructi.;i -, .., uf his cr__,ps, fvv".2's·•(J-\thuman··c;eorges)· ti:;stiinJny" 1'--•i::s ?J.t : on el- 1 sc • scrutiny seem tv b~ ·:thait c0nclu.sive. This is what hE: st.-:ited,:- . 11 Nilipofi\ nili~;t' .:zwu na miai kwamba shamba l..lkE= . ; •. .I ' limeliw21 na 119 1 ;;,mbe,j,l<ioi hakunieleza ni ng'umb w3 nani. Hivyo wbte kwa μamja tulifuatilia ny3y z:::i ng 1 ombe ambdzo ziliishid nje• ·ya 2izi la miaiwa na kwamba haikuelewekma walikuwa ng 1 ,Jmbe wa wa mjaiwa". (un1erlining sup)lie1). i?W.3 •s (N(;st:....ry Mc..1ngwelela) evi·hmce was not also Si)s:'Cific .:m thi~ issu~. On th~ whul e .::1fter a careful cxaminati.:,n of the eviience on r,-:c .... r-:1, I. m· lik,l th.::: trial Court ·of the: OJ)ini.;n th..:1t there w3s no sufficiant 0vic~~;,.c:0 that of cattl th.;1t st:1blishc:?1Lthe hea1s LLnv:.)l vei WE::re in:'leei th.,)se of the a,)i)d.lcn!.• Thia!re is :11s0 th~ intriguing tJUcsti .m thctt the sham'ba iestr..>y~:l WQS ·\ surr..;un·i-=i by vther shambas. Ani that Jnly the res 1 }un1ent' s sh..:m])t}. th;it w.::s destr-:,ye-1. on the value vf the it!struyei cr..1,μs - ..:igu.in no· e1'-i-i,;,1C,.! w.;.1s 11:-1 tu esti.iblish ani ascer.tain the clairni am,,unt. The \ vill:1c;c "Bwan.::i Shamba" f>"v.3, wh:J visite'i tho:: shumbc:1 iii n:)t t!stir,1t;_thc · . • ~ • l val u1:: - he cl eorl y stdte1 so in his evi -\ence 11 Sikukisia tham,:.HU y.::: t1.::z,-:> 1 •, I The 1~:::ir·J ,0.x:icul tural Officer who wr0te the letter in which the sunr 0-f Shs.17, 628/20 was inii<::c1te1 c1s being the vc:11 u :>f the -1.um.:lgei cr.)) t-12.s not c~~lh:1 to testify. J-\n1 apart fr-::>m his, gneral assertdi,)n in thc:t letter h:~ iii nut c:X?lain h.Jw· the v.::.1rL.Jus fi,gurs in that lettr w.:~i:-:.:: rt:::ich,,d. In short the claim W::is c-:...mpletely unsubstdntL:1te1. I I

3 proT,,k1 his c;:aset-·, -~ :' l •. • • .. • •. I ·w:)Ul1 allow this a,)peul'• ... Tt}e, it2Ci"i:;°i.0n -->f ;.,the d£ell~to District Cvurt i& set asi·i ,.; :--- .the. i'e<";\ts'i'n of, t;he tri-al: C,.Jurt is :· .. -,;. : · ·· '· ' · · ri r '· · · .i::st::ire-:'.l ' ..: • ) 1 1 t ... r. HLJ 1 )eol alloei Y{ith costs. . '' ,' :. 4 ·J .. : :: l. .- This v?}gmrn.t. is tL,' ':=- -i·P:-1 Cwurt. tu" ;J-2 ra'i. t:J. tthe parti~s! ., ' .. 0 ., . . •· . :. .. . , ... .. :· ,· ·- JUDGE . r\ .. 14/11/1990, :>r i i ,, :. -i:L'i:· . ..:. W. H. S&~UL,~~ .·• ,'\ .. . ,i· " •·' .. .J 't ....... ,-, JUDGE J' . ' '' .; j • I ·., .

Discussion