Waisirikare v. Biraki Civ. App. 55-M-70; 26/2/71; El-Kindy Ag. J.

 

Waisirikare v. Biraki Civ. App. 55-M-70; 26/2/71; El-Kindy Ag. J.

The respondent filed a suit against the appellant alleging that he (appellant) reported false information to the police as a result of which he was remanded in custody for over 3 months. He claimed a total of Shs. 6,950/- made up of: (a) Shs. 1,100/- in respect of 11 head of cattle stolen due to lack of care while he was in custody; (b) Shs. 4,850/- loss of vegetable selling business from which he earned Shs. 50/- per day. The District allowed the claim. This appeal was brought on the grounds: (a) that appellant was not responsible for the arrest; (b) that there was no proof that respondent had suffered any loss as he claimed.

Held: (1) The basis of the claim is not clear. “To be fair, the plaint must have been drafted by a lay hand, and it was therefore the duty of the magistrate in such circumstances to check the pleadings before being filed.”(2) “As far as could make out, the respondent was suing the appellant for malicious prosecution or wrongful confinement. In wither case; the facts pleaded were most inadequate, as many more facts needed to be pleaded besides that too short statement. In my view, even if this was done, the claims laid down needed proof. It would have been necessary for the respondent to prove, on balance of probabilities, that he sustained the losses he mentioned in his plaint as a result of the appellant’s acts if he was to succeed in his claim. It was not open for the trial magistrate in the circumstances of this case, merely to enter judgment “as prayed”. (3) Appeal allowed.