Automated Summary
Key Facts
The respondent sued the appellant for Tshs. 2,060,000, alleging the appellant failed to deliver 100 bags of maize after receiving an advance payment. A contract (exhibit EE1) was presented as evidence, with the respondent claiming he advanced Tshs. 5,060,000 to the appellant for the maize purchase. The trial court and Singida District Court both ruled in favor of the respondent, finding the appellant's evidence contradictory and unreliable. The appellate court dismissed the current appeal, affirming the lower courts' decisions due to insufficient grounds for interference and the respondent's credible evidence, including witness testimony from Abdallah Swalehe and the appellant's wife, Marisiana Shila.
Transaction Type
Sale of maize under a contract
Issues
The court determined whether a contract existed between the Appellant and Respondent for the purchase of 100 bags of maize, considering the concurrent findings of the two lower courts and the weight of evidence presented by both parties.
Holdings
- The court emphasized that appellate courts will only interfere with concurrent factual findings of lower courts if they are unreasonable, perverse, or based on misapprehension of evidence, which was not demonstrated in this case.
- The High Court of Tanzania dismissed the second appeal, affirming the lower courts' concurrent findings that the respondent's evidence was credible and sufficient to prove the contract for purchasing 100 bags of maize, while the appellant's evidence contained contradictions and lacked trustworthiness.
Remedies
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Contract Value
5060000.00
Monetary Damages
2060000.00
Legal Principles
The court applied the standard of proof in civil cases, noting that the Respondent's evidence was heavier than the Appellant's. It emphasized that a civil court need not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, but rather that the weight of evidence for one party must exceed the other's. This principle was central to upholding the lower courts' decisions and dismissing the appeal due to the Appellant's contradictory evidence.
Precedent Name
- Richard Mgaya
- Jafari Mohamed v. Republic
- Raymond Mwinuka vs. the Republic
- Daudi Lugusi and 2 Others v. Republic
- Daniel Nguru and Four Others v. R
- Petrers v. Sunday Post Ltd
Cited Statute
Rules of Evidence in Primary Courts
Judge Name
Gerson J. Mdemu
Passage Text
- I am of the view that, the trial Court did evaluate properly the evidence adduced in reaching its decision. I subscribe to the decision of the two lower Courts that, the Respondent did prove his case at the required standard. There is evidence such that, he entered into contract with the Appellant for purchasing 100 bags of maize for Tshs. 5,000,000/=. Tshs. 60,000/= was for purchasing 100 empty bags for loading maize. This evidence was supported by that of SM2 one Abdallah Swalehe who witnessed the transaction. This was also witnessed by the Appellant's wife one Marisiana Shila. The said contract was admitted by the trial Court as exhibit EE1.
- This contradiction makes the evidence of the Appellant to be weak and untrusted. It is unlike the evidence of the Respondent which is credible and trusted such that, he really advanced money to the Appellant for purchase of 100 bags of maize.
- Besides that contract, there is evidence adduced by the Respondent which, in my view, is heavier when compared to that of the Appellant which appears to have contradictions. Regarding this latter, the Appellant in his evidence, testified that, he didn't know the Respondent.
Damages / Relief Type
Compensatory Damages of Tshs. 2,060,000