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 470Tanzania

Wiselwa s/o Mabuga vs Niego s/o Masakilija (PC Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1939) [1990] TZHC 470 (29 October 1990)

High Court of Tanzania

Judgment

n~ TIIE IITG:.I co-::-,}1.T OF TANZ,AfHA .AT MWA.1.'JZA. APPELLA'.CE JDRISDICTION (PC) CIVIL APPB!J., :'.W., 229 OF 1989 (From ttH3 decioion o·" --'.:.e Dis·:;rict Court of Kwiraba Dis-t:dct at NglL<iU in Civil.Appeal lfo.28 of 19/39 - Before r-1. R. :rvn.p,wa, Esq., District Ma,eis·t::.:-ate and Ori:;inal Kakora ?riL1al'"IJ Court Civil Case No.14 of 1939) WISEI.'.:TA S/ 0 i1t.13UGA •••• , • , ,.• " , ••••••••• , •• o ••••••• , • " ••. : ••• • .APPELL:,l'IT VERSUS WIIEGO s/o MtstuCTLIJ A ••••••• ' •••••••••• ,, ••••• ; •• " ••• ~ ...... RESPONDENT J U D G M E_ N T MOllYERA 2 J • : The appellant ·was ·;;;1e c'1.efenclant in tl:.e trial,. The respondent ::meo. him :for recovery of 20 llea.d. o:::' cc1,tt1e. The gist o:~ -;;:1e case was t!:,2:i; in 1964 ·b:•.e appellant sold 25 ;,.ead. of cat ·:;le to the 1·esponclento Later- iJi; turned oirc -he cattle weJe r:ri:olen ones, the owner clo.iraed and took t.'.:.em away. The responclen-t ·L01 0..enc1.nded paymen'(i from ·t;:1e person wl10 sold. t:..10m to him, ·i;J:w;i; was the appel12J:1:ti-. Ee argued ·;;J.1e appella;.d; gave him :::'ive (5) cows leavlllg a 1ala;:ce ol' 20 1 'iil10 subject of tLis s;.i.it. In llio '1e?m1ce una.nirnousll :fol. 1 .nd t>.e :i'.'espon(ent's claim baseles::; e,n.cl clis~:tissed. it. :;::o appealed to 'liilc Distrio•t; Co1,1.:::·ti w;:iich l1elti. -cllc reverse, in turn this a),)poal was brot.'.g2:t. The decision tu.rnocl on ·che credibili·i;y of witnesses., !iti a I"nlc ' the trial court is tte i.,cs·i; judge unless ·i;:.:.ere be reasons to ·i/10 co1y~:;•a,:r;y-. In this ca.oe I find no re2.-so:.1 why ·che Dis·rict Na,r'5"is·;;r2:t;0 upse-i; tb.c jud. 6 i11ont of the trial cot·.rt, .. ;.fter all t;1c responCe::i; clair:1od t~.e transaction took place so::ie·'.;ir.10 in 1964, while lc.e :::'ilccl. this suit last 7 year. Where has he bec;:1 :i:'or -;1ose 25 years. I allow t:1e appeal. 'I1)}.e juclgmont of the Distric·:;_ Cotn'·c is sO"i; aside a.net tJ::.E·:i; of the Primar,J Cottr· . restoredo The resporn:ont r,l"1;8.:.1ds to lose and will pr t.:.,e costs. AT lVTifAHZA .22/10/99, JUJ)GE, f

Discussion