IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA

SUM BAWANG A DISTRICT REGISTRY

ATSUMBAWANGA

LAND APPEAL NO. 25 OF 2022

(Originating from Land Application N. 5/2021, in the District Land and Housing Tribunal for
Kata vi at Mpanda)

HUSSEIN KASOMELA..
ABDALLAH KASOMELA

ANITA BONIFACE MAPULE ........... RESPONDENT

■ ' ' ,:a w. "“W®

MWENEMPAZT

The appellants are, aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the District

Land and Housing^ribiinaI for Katavi at Mpanda dated 29/7/2022 Hon. G.K.

Rugelema /chairperson). They have raised five (5) grounds of appeal as

•^51^:'*'

follows:

1. That, the Trial Tribunal erred in law by visiting locus in quo without

following the procedures governing locus in quo visit.

Page. 1 of 25
 2. That, the Trial Tribunal erred in law and fact by holding that the

suitland belongs to the Respondent while she contradicted herself in

her testimony by claiming that she suitland was owned jointly with her

husband, who was not the applicant before the Tribunal.

3. That, the Trial Tribunal erred in law and faclsby holding that the
suitland belongs to respondent without giving a clSfc^escription and

specification of the suitland which could distinguish'itfrom ;otner lands.

4. That, the Trial Tribunal erred in law agreeingjwith the opinion of

assessor B. Mlundwa which was cohtradictbrywnd ambiguous.

5. That the Trial Triljjfnai erred ih>,|aw '-apd facts by granting the

respondent 13/T;acre£while1n tier application she claimed a total of

Wk ..:ac

acres, that was enough ten say . that the respondent didn't prove her

case on balance of probabilities.

Ws,. "W
They are praying that the appeal be allowed with costs; that the judgment

and decree:x)f the;trial tribunal be quashed and set aside and also for any

other relief this Court shall deem it fit and just to grant.

The respondent approached the District Land and Housing Tribunal and sued

the appellants claiming for a piece of land, which according to paragraph 3

Page 2 of 25
of the application it is aV'Tuiieni Area, Kazima Ward Mpanda Municipality:

Kusini Magharibi Abdalla Kasomeia; Mashariki: Kapaia na Mke wake and

Kaskazini: Haji" estimated to be worthy Tshs. 4,800,000/-; according to

paragraph 6(a) of the application form its size is six (6) acres.
4k
In the claims it was averred by the applicant that the respondents (appellants

herein) have invaded on the boundaries and claiiwo.ownthe farm, which

.... w w®
the applicant (respondent herein) bought itwith he|:lat^hd:spand one John

Kasangala in 1988 and they were cultiyatihgdt;she. prayed for a declaration

’■ '4^.
that the dispute area is her property, vacant^possession and costs.

The trial tribunal decided^in favour of the|applicant (Respondent in this

appeal) that the/area in disputewhich is l3/4 acre is a property of the

.■■2^'^ ’'kW
’kjg. vk ’7 J"
applicant. Costs also .costs -'were awarded. The appellants are thus

At the appeal the appellants were being represented by Mr. Laurence John,

learned advocate and the respondent was unrepresented. Parties sought for

leave to proceed by way of written submission. The prayer was granted and

a scheduling order was issued.

Page 3 of 25
Mr. Laurence John, learned advocate submitted on the 1st ground of appeal

that the trial tribunal erred in law by visiting locus in quo without following

the procedures governing locus in quo visit. He submitted that normally it

is not mandatory for the Court to visit locus in quo but whenever the Court

does so, there are certain guidelines and procedures which has to be

followed to ensure fair trial. He cited the case of Sikuzani Saidi Magambo

and Another Versus Mohamed Roble, Civil Appeal W>197/2f)18, Court

of Appeal of Tanzania at Dodoma. Wv.

W. WWk
The guidelines were pronounced in the^case of Nizar M.H. Versus
'Wk w,

Gulamali Fazal Janmohamed [1980] T.L.R 29 where the Court held:

''Whena-visit
J,;?1”
to a locus ih quo is necessary or appropriate, and as

m? have said, this should only be necessary in exceptional cases,

Athecourtshouldattend with the parties and their

W advocates, if any,:and with much each witness as many have to

in that particular matter... When the Court re-assembles

‘ .■-'.'/' ■KT

in the Court room, aii such notes should be read out to the

parties and their advocates, and comments, amendments,

dr objections, called for and if necessary incorporated.

Witnesses then ha ve to give evidence of all those facts, if they are

relevant, and the Court only refers to the notes in order to

Page 4 of 25
 understand; or relate to the evidence in Court given by

witnesses. We trust that this procedure will be adopted by the

Courts in future",

The counsel has submitted that was not done; after locus in quo visit the

tribunal never read out to the parties the notes obt|ijped at locus in quo,

never invited the parties to comment make^g^idmerite^of the notes

obtained at locus in quo, Worse enough witnesse4vfe®testif^^fcazs In
W M <fr"

quo were not in attendance the date the tribUnaL made re-assembly after a

locus in quo. WB

The counsel had as a conclusion that failure to follow the procedure is a fatal

irregularity and invited this Court to so find.

On the 2nd ground of appeal, tfeappellants argue that the trial tribunal erred

. nd fact by holding that the suitland belongs to the Respondent while

she contradicted herself in her testimony by claiming that the suitland was

owned jointly > with: her husband who was not the applicant before the

tribunal.

The counsel for appellants has submitted that the evidence by the applicant

was contradictory. She testified on oath that she bought the suitland jointly

Page 5 of 25
with her late husband. The trial tribunal granted the respondent the whole

land without confirming that she was the administratrix of the estates other

late husband.

He has argued that her husband was a necessary party in the suit, and if he
was dead as claimed, then his administrator/admin^fetrix ought to have

been joined. He. cited the case of RarnadhaniOrnaiy Mbuguni^ersus

Ally Ramadhani and Another, Civil Application M ^lR2<^f2021 Court

of Appeal of Tanza n ia at Ta nga (u n re ported)

Because of lack of proof .of respondent fehdjpg for interests of her late
Tia.
husband and even> .her ;evidence of acquisition of the land remains
■4%, 'W; ;5"4.

contradictory andlunreliable since her -witnesses namely Zakayb Samson

(SM2) and Godfrey Peter Kasangala (SM3) testified that the suit land belongs

to thefate husband .These contradictions in the evidence have made the

evidence: of the

Respondent unreliable. The counsel has cited the case of Bakari Hamis

Ling'ambe Versus Republic [2014] T.L.R 85 (CA):

" The law on this point is now sailed. Not every inconsistency and

or contradiction will make a prosecution case to flop. It is only

Page 6 of 25
 where the gist of evidence is contradictory then the prosecution 's

case will be dismantled".

On the 3rd ground of appeal, the appellants complain that the trial tribunal

erred in law and fact by holding that the suitland belongs to respondent

without giving a clear description and specificationsW the suitland which

could distinguish it from other lands

Land and Housing) Regulation GN No. of 2003 which require the

The purpose of proper description was stated in the case of Twapasyagha

Yotam Kasal^ke Versus^&sili Kasanga, Land Appeal No- 68 of 2022,

High CoUrt’ofTanzania at Mbeya at page 4-5. Insufficient description is

fatal irregularity

The counsel opined that in the present case the suitland was not sufficiently

identified.

Page 7 of 25
On the 4th ground of appeal, the appellants have complained that the trial

tribunal erred in law agreeing with the opinion of assessors B. Mlundwa

which was contradictory and ambiguous.

He has submitted that it is the requirement of law that assessors have to be

given an opportunity to give opinion in writing which shall be read out to the
u f 4-u • J 4. - . ■ 'Wsu- ■ j
parties before the judgment is pronounced. The^.chairman ihfeis judgment,

has to indicate if he agrees with the assessors and|f he^aiffje^s, he should

give reasons. He referred the case of Sikudhani Said Magambo and

Another Versus Mohamed Roble (Supra),, "

.5^:^- r^. "Ik

In the case at hand the chairperson agreed -vyith the opinion of assessors B.

Mlundwa who gave the following opinion:

,l^^^alikuw'dga:maapLlpjwavi<wa kuwa shahidi Yolam Samson mdogo

H anakubblj^kuwa^riarehernu baba yake aliuza eneo kwa mleta

^&$aombi akiwa hayupo, hivyo hajuibaba yake..."

This opinion never gave rights to the appellant nor respondent. It was very

contradictory for the tribunal to agree with opinion which is itself ambiguous.

On the 5th ground of appeal, the appellants complain that the tribunal erred

in law facts by granting the respondent l3/4 acres while in her application

Page 8 of 25
she claimed a total of 6 acres; that was enough to say that the respondent

didn't prove her case on balance of probabilities.

The counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that in Civil Cases, the case is decided

on balance of probabilities. He cited the case of Anthony Msanga Versus

Penina Kitira and Lucia Maiko [2015] T.L.R46 (CA). also, the case of

Export Trading Co. Ltd Versus Mzartc TradirigCo Ltd [2014] T.L.R

242 (HC) which held that

burden of establishing'a case onbalance-pf probability lies on a

person who would fail if no evidence af all was offered on either

Ik
side and this case, it idfhe plaintiff...":

The counsel had the :opiniorrthat since the respondent alleged to

have bought"the suit land jointly with her husband, she ought to

have substantiated the aI legations. She failed even to recognize the

exact year" spe bought the land. She even failed to call material

witnesses who witnessed the alleged sale of the land. Hence the

trial tribunal was required to enter adverse inference against the

respondent as per City Coffee Ltd Versus the Registered

Trustee of Holo Coffee Group [2019] 1 T.L.R 182 (CA).

Page 9 of 25
According to the counsel for the appellant, the tribunal ought to have

dismissed the application based on the irregularities pinpointed above. He

therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed with costs.

The respondent was being served by Ms. Sekela Amulike, learned advocate

who has indicated in the submission that she was retaipe;d for drawing the

written submission

in line with the appellant's position save forThelfact’ that there was no

compliance to the procedure^ She agrees 'tftat in the instant case it was
||
necessary to visit locus iriiquo as it 'isJeatured at page 6 of the tribunal's

judgment and that the procgdure;laid down in Nizar M.H. Versus Gulamali

Fazal Janmdhamed [1980] T.L.R 29 which included taking notes

(proceedings) of whathappened at the field and the notes were read before

Qn the issue of not calling the witnesses who testified during locus in quo

visit, when the tribunal re assembled again, this is left at the discretion of

the tribunal, as correctly stated in the case of Nizar M.H. Versus Gulamali

Fazal Janmohamed (supra). The tribunal did not see the necessity of

Page 10 of 25
calling witnesses to testify because the purpose of visiting locus in quo had

already been met and the tribunal had already inspected the suit land; she

prayed this ground to be dismissed.

On the 2nd ground of appeal, the counsel for respondent has submitted that
it is true the suitland was bought by the respondenBaftd her husband, in

various phases from 1988, 1989 and 2000 as WWo,ccupier|;. the<term is

defined under section 159(1) of the Land Ad:,.[Cap413^’B2gJ9] as:

'ihsr

"...Co - occupancy means -the occupatidn:-.ofylandr'held for a

occupancy right or pjease by twp or more undivided shares and

0^ S-,

maybe eitherjoint occupancy or.occupancy in common"

S:1'.'' "■■L 'SA.-

The suit land was owned by the respondent together with her husband as
.djd4.. SA-
'W-
the law recognizes and it permits co-occupancy, also according to section

lSOC^b) of the.Land Act, [Cap 113 R.E 2019] it clearly states:

Ki-B, SA

-s-s-i

‘ ^^7 death-ofjoint occupier his interest shall vest in the

surviving occupier jointly"

The suitland is currently owned by the respondent because her husband is

deceased and according to the above provision of the law the interest of the

Page 11 of 25
co-occupier passes to the surviving occupier without passing through

probate and administration of estates procedures.

In the present case it was not necessary for the respondent to claim as the

administrator of the estate of her late husband or the claim as the

representative of the same because the suitland belongs to her. She thus

prayed for dismissal of an appeal.

On the 3rd ground of appeal, the counsel for;ttie resppndenfHas submitted

that Regulation 3(2) of the Land Disputes CourtS|M^ (the District Land and
.
Housing Tribunals) Regulation 2003 [GN, NoW:^74 of 2003] provides for the

The respondent managed toshow clearly the suitland, by indicating that the

suitlai^ is at Tulieni Area, in Kaziwa Ward, Mpanda Municipal Katavi Region.

She also-managed- to show neighbours and some of them managed to

appear before the tribunal and also testified particularly SM2 and SU3.

In the case of Lupembe Village Government, Ikolo Ward, Kyela

District and another Versus Bethelehamu Mwandafwa and 5

Others, Civil Appeal No. 377 of 2020, Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Mbeya

Page 12 of 25
(unreported) the Court when dealing with the situation of this kind, it stated

that at page 16 - 17:

"...to ensure that each case is adjudged within its own

circumstances, in the Written Statement of Defence (WSD), the

appellant dearly did not challenge that descriptioirdfythe suitland,

nor deny it"

th-
The counsel for the respondent submitted that failure of-the respondent to

dispute about location of the land, clearly verifiesrthat-the suitland is known

to the parties. In the instant .case the respondent whp was the applicant in

the trial tribunal managed to show, locate the area specifically and also the
IM . .■■/--.-A
W k?' '-I t,

appellant didn't dispute about the existence of the area, and there was no

party who was prejudiced b^the description of the suitland.

The counsel submitted that the respondent who was the applicant before

the tridjtribuna 1 managed to show the area, the Ward where such property

is found andolso managed to show the neighbors where such land is located.

She submitted that such description helped the tribunal to visit locus in quo

and even at locus in quo the. appellants did not object. She prayed the

appeal be dismissed.

Page 13 of 25
On the 4th ground of appeal, the counsel for the respondent has submitted

that the chairman of the trial tribunal gave chance to assessors to give their

opinion and he recorded the same as required by the law and the opinion of

the assessors were clear and not ambiguous as claimed by the appellants in

their submission in chief; in particularly the opinion given by B. Mlundwa.

The opinion given by B. Mlundwa is very clear^d^it stated&that Stl5 w

was known as Yotham .Said Mdogo testified.5that "his late -fjatb^ sold the

suitland to the respondent. Hence the opinioh was directly given right to

the respondent and it is notambiguods as the appeHant stated. Due to that

understanding the chairman decided correctly by agreeing with the opinion

<. Ik

of the assessors because they were clear and pointing out to the owner of
..
Zf-j ’Wb/ • 'AX' ■ *
the suitland

On the,'5th ground of appeal,'the appellants are complaining that it was an

error to.grant the respondent 13A acres while in her application she claimed

a total of 6 'acres-' ■’ According to them, that was enough to say that the

respondent didn't prove her case on balance of probabilities.

The counsel submitted that the fact that standard of proof in civil cases is

within the balance of probability is very common, it has been stated In

Page 14 of 25
various case laws including the case of Anthony Masanga Versus Peniha

Kitira and Lucia Maiko [2015] TLR46.

The term balance of probabilities means that a certain issue is more probable

that it occurred than it did not occur (more probable than not).

In this case, the respondent/applicant in the trialtribunafmanaged to prove

her case to the required standard and also the^evidence adduced by the
% "Ik
appellants who were respondents beforelrthe t|j^tribuf&l was not

satisfactory.

As it was clearly stipulatecjBy the respondent (who was the applicant) in the

trial tribunal, it is clear that the land she owns at that particular area is 6

acres and the|fespohdents^ave invaded on part of his land only which is

13A acreof the wholeland-.therefore what the appellants claim is unfounded

whichjsa result of misapprehension of the facts. The respondent prays that

the ground is dismissed. And therefore, the whole appeal be dismissed with

costs.

In rejoinder, the counsel for the appellant has insisted that in the first ground

of appeal, that their submission was centered on the failure to read the notes

obtained at locus in quo, failure to invite parties to comment on the

Page 15 of 25
observation's contrary to the guidelines in the case of Nizar M.H. Versus

Gulamali Fazal Janmohamed [1980] TLR 29. Also, the respondent has

failed to substantiate how the procedure was observed by replying to every

pointed-out defect. He has invited this Court to verify on the proceedings of

the trial tribunal. W

On the 2nd ground of appeal, the counsel has faulted, the lihe^of argument
' - WF
that the respondent and her late husband were cdfepcctipantof the land.

That is a new argument not pleaded arid^also riot adjudicated in the trial

tribunal. Second it is not applicable in.the circumstances as the land is not

registered as per section 159 (3) of Land Act, [Cap 113 R.E 2019].

On the third (3rd)..of appeal, the counsel for the appellants has submitted

that the case oT Lupembe Village Government, Ikolo Ward Kyela

District and Another Versus Bethelehamu Mwandafwa and 5 Others

(supra) Is not applicable in the circumstances because firstly, the complaint

before your Honourable Court was not on whether appellants didn't know

the suitland or not rather it was on violation of the law for failure to describe

properly the suitland something which led to the tribunal to give in

executable decree which doesn't specify where respondent won.

Page 16 of 25
On the fourth ground of appeal the counsel for the appellant has submitted

that the case of Eliumba Ezekiel (supra) is not applicable in the

circumstances of the case at hand because what was faulted in the

submission in chief is the act of trial tribunal chairperson to agree with the

opinion of one B. Miundwa who provided a contradictory opinion as she

’W-
never gave rights to the appellant nor the respondent

On the 5th ground of appeal, the counsel has submitted’ thabthey maintain

that the respondent never proved her^caseToThp.,balance of probabilities

that she entitled to the suitland by failure: to call -material witness who

witnessed the sale of the suitland. '

..
There was no evidence that she was the administratrix of the estate of her

late husband's'estateOVitnesses SM2 and SM3 testified that the suit land

belongs to the- late husband' of the respondent. It was the duty of the

respondent (applicant) in the trial tribunal to prove the case to the balance

of probabilities. The appellants pray that the appeal be allowed with costs.

I have had an opportunity to read the record as well as the submissions by

the parties. The issue for determination is whether the appeal at hand has

Page 17 of 25
merit. As it would be referred herein above it is clear that parties are at a

serious contest over the land.

The first ground of appeal faults the procedure at the locus in quo. The

counsel has cited the case of Nizar M.H, Versus Gulamali Fazal

Janmohamed (supra). That the notes were not read oVer after the tribunal
w 'W,
re-assembled. That however, has been oppdsed/by the counsel -far the

respondent. She has submitted that the trial;triburiajtreadsth^otes after it

had re assembled, even witnesses were riot-called because the purpose had
fa. fafafaMfe;. fa
"fa.^

been achieved. "fa-

fa fa-.. "fafa

I have read the record of the trial tribunal when it visited the locus in quo
''ft;
on the 8/7/2022.; The applicant and respondents were present. They had a
'fa fa.:

chance to show their/respective-areas and borders.

"fa
That was done openly
fa- ■■ .

and nonobjections were, raised/ However, it is also clear, the trial tribunal re
fa-fa
fa-fa.,
assembled on the 14/7/2022. It is unfortunate that it was not recorded why
fafa fa
the witnesseswvere not called. However, in my view, since they had an open

testimony by demonstration of showing real location in situ there was no

need to call the witnesses as is demanded. I therefore run with the

Page 18 of 25
submission by the counsel for the respondent that the procedure was

followed. The first ground therefore fails.

On the 2nd ground of appeal, the issue is whether the respondent had locus

standi to sue on behalf of her late husband without having the status of an

administrator of the estate of the late Peter F. Kasangalay<The point was the

subject of objection on the 26/5/2021. A ruling wasdeliveredon 17/6/2021.

W "W, "W.diF
Briefly the respondent had a power of attorney, to supervise :and or oversee
iir
properties of the late Peter F. Kasarig^Wjt^h^o^|IDAN KASANGALA

PETER who issued a power of attorney in favour of ANITHA BONIPHACE

IF
KWIMBA. That being the position it was proper for the respondent to claim
% % %
as she did and also fries tribunal to find ..that the dispute land was owned

jointly by the respondent and her husband. With that position I find the

issue is/resolved by dismissing the ground of appeal for devoid of merit.

— rr • rr- • • -’ • • r

not sufficiently,;■ ■identified. The counsel for the appellant alleged that

Regulation 3(2) of the Land Disputes Courts Act (District Land and Housing

tribunal) Regulations, 2003 [ GN. No. 173 of 2003] was not complied with;

the said regulation required the applications at the tribunal to provide

Page 19 of 25
sufficient identification of suitland. The provision of 3(2) of.G.N. 173 of 2003

are as follows:

An application to the Tribunal shall be mad in the form prescribed in the

second schedule to these Regulations and shall contain:

a) The names and address of parties involved;

b) The address of the suit premises or location'of the land: involved in the

dispute to which the application relates; W

Mb
c) Nature of disputes and cause 'of action;

d) Estimated value of the subject matter ofthe;:.dispute;

e) Relief sought;

f) Amount of rent ifthe disputeinvolvespayment of rent.

"W

The provision was considered An the referred case of Twapasyagha

Yotam Kasaiwike Versus Esili Kasanga(supra) held that:

"It was.intended to inform the tribunal of a sufficient description of the suit land

in dispute for purposes of identifying it from other areas/iand where it stands or

where in particular Lusungo stands in Tanzania.

Page 20 of 25
 It is a common cause that in respect of un surveyed land, specification of

boundaries, neighbours and/or permanent features surrounding the suitland is

important for the purpose of identification".

According to the appellant the description of the suitland in this case was

not sufficient. The counsel respondents submitted "That the respondents

managed to show a proper description indicating the Ideation and also

naming neighbours. Particularly SM2 and SU3. Inaddition, shefSubmitted

w w
that, the appellants did not even oppose the same in their written statement

of defence. She cited the case of Lupembe Village Government, Ikolo

Ward Kyela District and Another Versus Bethelehamu Mwandafwa

and 5 Others (supra). Sheiprayed for the ground to be dismissed.

At page 2 and 3 of this judgment I referred to the averment in the application

form paragraph 3<pf appli^afidn form. The appellants in their written

statement of defence noted the paragraph, a sign that they had no dispute.
"Wh. V-.

I am aware of the principle that parties are bound by their own pleadings.

Parties to lawsuit are generally limited to the claims and defenses that they

have raised in their pleadings. The purpose of the principle is to promote

fairness and efficiency in the legal system. It prevents parties from

surprising each other with new claims or defenses at the trial. The
Page 21 of 25
importance of the principle is therefore threefold: one, it ensures that parties

have a fair opportunity to prepare for trial; second, it helps to prevents the

trial from becoming unnecessarily long and complex, third, it helps the Court

to focus on the relevant issues in the case and to make a just decision. In

the case of Barclays Bank (T) Ltd Versus Jacob|Muro, Civil Appeal

No. 357 of 2019 [2020] TZCA 1875 (26 Noyember;2p20). It was

decided that the principle binds even the Court, ^he same,runs/from the

quotation at page 12, as follows:

"...the Court would be ( acting contrary ttp its own-character and

nature if it were to;pronounce any claim of^defence not made by

■<: W J’W
the parties. To do so would be to enter upon the realm of

speculation". • 1’W"
''hie.

Under the circumstances^it is unbecoming for the appellants to argue that

I® 'Tw
the case of Lupembe Village Government, Ikolo Ward Kyela District
’Wk ‘ ’Zh
'W;. H'?
and Another Versus Bethelehamu Mwandafwa and 5 Others (supra)

is not applicable in this case particularly for the position that the appellants

never opposed nor denied the averment In their written statement of

defence. I therefore find the ground to lack merit and dismiss it.

Page 22 of 25
On the 4th ground of appeal, the appellants argue that it was wrong to agree

with the opinion of the assessors in particular B. Mlundwa. In his view, the

opinion is ambiguous. As the assessor affirmed the fact that the witness

was absent during the sale and yet she suggested the land should be

declared it belongs to the respondent.

The respondent has argued that the assessor opined/that the^land.was sold
w
to the respondent thus it is not ambiguous;TThe d^igipn;o|gie chairman

facts, the respondent bought dispute landTrom the- father of the witness

(Yolam Samson Mdogo). The witness Wasnob’therefore in a position to

dispute the fact of -sale, - although he could not confirm the exact
4-,'p *■. ■' ■> •-*

location/pointh But the land, was shown by the respondent and other

witnesses." Th^t in myunderstanding was the basis of agreeing. I therefore

find that the complaint is unfounded and the appellant had an opportunity

to object at the scene. The ground is dismissed.

As to whether the respondent proved her case or not; I have the opinion

that the answer is affirmative. The respondent was able to show that she

owns a land whose size is six (6) acres and out of that the appellants have

Page 23 of 25
encroached into a part of that iand which was confirmed to be l3/4 acre as

was verified when the trial tribunal visited the locus in quo, The respondent

had a duty to prove her case and she did that and the trial Tribunal

confirmed. In line to the decision in Export Trading Co Ltd Versus Mzartz

Trading Co. Ltd (supra). The respondent proved the,case to the balance

of probabilities.

■rip?;.'.-. ’ y •&’

For the reasons and explanations given, I find the appear has-no merit and

is dismissed with costs.

w,.

It is ordered accordingly.

Dated and signed at Sumbawanga this 19th day of October, 2023.

T.M. MWENEMPAZI
JUDGE

Page 24 of 25
Judgement delivered this 19th day of October, 2023 via video conference.

The 1st Appellant and the Respondent were at the Resident Magistrates'

Court of Katavi at Mpanda.

Page 25 of 25