Edwin Mwandusa vs Ambukege Mwandusa (PC Civil Appeal No. 35 of 1988) [1990] TZHC 586 (18 October 1990)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA ~ AT MBEYA. (PC) CIVIL APPEi,L ItOe 35 OF 1988 {1rom_:the .d<fci_sion of the· Diwtrict Court of. - · Rtuj.tse "Distr:L'ct at Tukuyu in Civil Ai1:10al "•- i/P.r, :Ntr,{25 • of :1988 -and Tukuyu Urbatj-: PriEJ.qry -Gourt. Civil Case Noa54 of 1987

Befqre: C.Be r!Iwkaturnb1:1-la, District· Fasis'ti''ate) • • ·... < .:.. :, •,:- .. -· ~ • • ' : - ••• • .. 1, : . . ·• i . . .. '. ' ' ., . . :. . ' : :: . _.. . . ; . J :··..-.·_ :· •·. Ambukege r!l~~n:dus sued' hi,s b;other'.Edwin I.'.iwahduffo 'at tne-;'.Friri:r:·- Court Tuityu aiing ·for shs.·_15·: 000/· bei.il_g· the value of JOO .·trees r_,. . i. .· .•. ;· ' \ ; • ' . . . . . allersed t:i have.' be.en··cut ... fron hj_s shanb_a.- · The Prir.1!3rY c'oμt after· · .·;,. hearing th;'-'evidciilci -ad. visi -ftrig· tlie .- ·lane'·, f ouirci: thn;t+tirt-ly 11 ''trocs ":·_.r:.: '.:::· , • "' • <'.. Jwcord:ingiy he. de·fori'dnri't wns or9-ei'od to·· i1t1Y 5:, 0,00 sh; :.p'.,tus'._-:;¢9sts' nrnounting,to-1,ooo•·~hs.- !Tl1d.dcfcnda:ri:it)i1oalod t'o·thd :Di-strict ··.:· ,:·:.·•; Csiurt but wfthout u;6'ssT ii.''.}tb n6½7 'ct'f':ipobls to this court for the,> :' , .-. ·.:';r,t:·: ::,·;· . : , i·r . 3 cori.ci · ·tirae • ., .. :·; ·.• , .. ' . . ,•· ,, .... : •'• . .. .... .. • The facts as revealed at t_h~ Pr'.ir.mry Court by the .. ·i)laipti.ff : - ·. r :r were as follows.. . '.J;1h~ father o-f 2-t-Jic •, parties wns 1:Iwandusa a1+d., he ... , ·•.. • •• ' 1_ • . died in 1'951:.:: ''The\ ;dtfooased·. hadr 2·' wive:s• -T'ho<t10thers bf the'.· partie's· w'cn--o, :a.If'fe'rtmt .• '. ·o foro, h:o ··· dioa:·-,:ho fathor' d:pvicle·d. his;,(,:;, . ' . . .. . . . ' ·. . , . ·. . . shambas giving the shn\ba that is situ'ltcd nt· Ke:t1J.t102 · to· Pulo. Mwandusa (P1.V2) ·and his brothers includi'nG tho dofoncbnt Edwin' · ·'· while the shanba ·si tuato,{t;.at. $:ir:iik;o was c;i von to /.11:1bukceo rHwnndUR!> ti · .. , . the plointi'ff! nlo~c • :,,_.· ·• . ./2 J' ., . ' ..

2 -·· , The defendant on the other hand claimgd that his father did not devide his shar.1ba before he died. ·He naintained that the· shambaf were being used jointly and in the case _of the trees these were used by wives of th~ ... dec_eased jointly for firewood •. The ts that ·'. t . were alleged to have been sold were sold· so tha_t r.1oney cou"l.d be realized for treatnient of ·the i:1other or' the ap:,eli2nt who .wa:3 sick The appellant called two sisters namely .Tusekile Njeni ·(DW2) and Ruth Nje:ni (BW3) to· uppo'rt his defence Bu.'t the· plaintiff (now respondent) had called Paulo lVIwandusa wh0.J/f~~ eldest brother of both parties __ and born of. the same moth.er with the a_p.pellant, and his . ! ' . . evidence supported the case of the' plaintiff (nw · re.spndent); The . ~ .. .. . ' .. ' .. respondent was also able to c~°ll non-:rel·ati ve s to .support his cas~ and these were Athuma:ni lVIwakipsiJ!e (PW3) nd' Alex Kasobile · PW4)., So thoug t_he appellan .. caimed that h~ 1 s. own brothe.r Pauo Mwandus~ .. Had a reason to l.:i.:-e agains~ him because. he the epp~-llant had ''. i . '.( ;- .... challenged the· witness in .. court when b.e sold a shamba, he could riot advance any reasons why the inder,i€ndant wi tness~s should have lied ,. . . against him: Th~ Primary Court in- an unanimous .. decision found.., .. that the plaintifi·' s · ca::rn had been proved on• a· balance o'f pr'obabili ty ....... : . . . I do not finq. any. rror in that decision in ·view of the e·yidence that ·, . ... . , was adduced •. ,· < The memorandum of appeal ·fi1.ed in this case me:r;ef;y- tries to, assert that the$ appellnt's~ase should h;ve be.en beli;·ved/· I·:: , . . .. · . . .... . ,. .: , do no·t ·find any' meri_t-in this contention and:··accorjngl:~-i'~ii!imis; .. the appeal with costs-" -· . __ ./ •; ··• ;. ·.' .JUDGE· .. •·· open Court this 18th day of Octob~_r, 1990