Joseph Mnyagundu vs Magubika Chanzi (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1985) [1985] TZHC 289 (6 December 1985)

. . IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZAiHA AT DODOivlA A:PPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPjAL No.2 OF 1985 ( Original Civil Case lfo. 2 of 1 984 of th D(strict Court of Dodoma·District at DOdoma 5 Before A.F.Shumbushof Esq., Resident Ma3istrate) u OSEPH. MNYAGUNDU . MAGUBIKA CHANZI J H RlJHUlVJBIKA 2 J : • • versus DGMENT APPELLANT. (Origim:1 Plaintiff) ••• RESPONDENT (Original Defendant) This is anoth8r a ryne4l aris:i ng from what ought to h.i.ve been objection procedings. However, irtGtead of commencing objection proceedin:w in the Prim:-1.ry Court tlnt made an order for tl'E att8,chment of 10 head of c-::i.ttle from the judgment- dettor of t1.1e respondent one CHIWA.NZA 9 the a-ppellant filed a suit i:'1. the District -Court. The c.?,ttla were to· be paid back by CHivl-rnZA to the respondent in wfund of bride-weal th paid by the respondent. During the hc;;aring of the appeal, tbe respondent agreed before court that the attachment warra;_1t was not in the name of the appellant but in that of CHIWANZA, but that e had to· attach the cattle from the appellant b0cause he was informed that the C3. ttle in question -had be en s2nt to the· place of the appellant for hiding. As already r,3marked i Civil Appeal No.13- o:t;; 1985 1 this habit of people transferring the effect of attachment warrants agairtsi people _not concerned with such mrrant s has become intoler3ble in this Reion, Certainly the attachment· of the 1 0 he•:i.d of cattle from the appellant is nothin;:2; but an illegal exercise, and it is wondered a.s to how the District Court could find against the ap"'1ella·'1.t who w::is the pl9,inti-f.f befor~ tl:a t court • . . . . . ·- ... I 2

' ~.:

• 2. - . This court .finds that there was no justification in atta- ching tre appellant's cattle without an order of the court. In the circumstances, th:f.s court has to allow the appeal • ,and order that the· respondent should give back to the appellant the cattle immediately. ·" If any of those animals had died or has been sola, thff respondent should. make good that by paying in cash t equival,)nt. value ()f that. This a-ppeal is allow·ed. The a-;1pe 113.nt will have his costs both in thj_s court B.nd the court of fjrst instance. DODC!'fiA. 6/12/''85

0. (;l n c c;;. ,-:J/111 c,;. R. J. L. RUHUI®IKA JUDGi Judgment delivered in Chambers at Dodoma this 6th day of Decemb~r 1985 in the presere e of both parties. DODOMA 6/12/'85 R.J.L.RUHUMBIKA JUDGE