HARUNA NDOLOGA v SANGULA CHIGONELA 1992 TLR 1 (HC)

 

HARUNA NDOLOGA v SANGULA CHIGONELA 1992 TLR 1 (HC)

Court High Court of Tanzania - Dodoma

Judge Mwalusanya J

13 January, 1992

Flynote

Criminal Law - Bonafide claim of right. B

-Headnote

After the failure by the appellant's brother to refund bride price, the respondent took

some cattle belonging to him. The respondent, upon a complaint by the appellant,

was charged for cattle theft. Both the Primary and District Court found him not

guilty. The C appellant appealed to the High Court.

Held: There was no theft but a mistaken claim of right.

Case Information

Appeal dismissed. D

[zJDz]Judgment

Mwalusanya, J.: The appellant Haruna s/o Ndologa was the complainant at Dodoma

Urban Primary Court. He complained that the respondent Sangula s/o Chigonela had

stolen his 20 head of cattle. The trial court held that the respondent was no guilty, E

because when he took the cattle he had an honest, but mistaken claim of right

because he thought he was entitled to a refund of bride price. The appellant made his

first appeal to Dodoma District Court and he failed and hence this second appeal.

Like the two courts below, I find that this appeal is bankrupt of merit. It is clear from

F the evidence that the respondent went to collect the cattle in broad light on the

understanding that he had the right to the refund of bride price from the brother of

his wife's father. He even reported to the C.C.M. that he had taken the cattle. That

was not theft. In the memorandum of appeal the appellant states that the marriage

between the G respondent and the daughter of his brother is still subsisting.

However that is a point to be taken in a civil suit but not in a criminal court. The

appellant can sue the respondent claiming the seized cattle on the ground that he is

not liable to refund the bride price for H his brother and when the marriage has not

been dissolved in a court of law. But the acquittal of the respondent was proper in

law.

In the event I find that this appeal has been lodged without sufficient ground of

complaint, and therefore the appeal is summarily rejected. I

Order accordingly.

1992 TLR p2

A