CHIKUMBI CHILOMO v MADAHA MGANGA 1986 TLR 247 (HC)

CHIKUMBI CHILOMO v MADAHA MGANGA 1986 TLR 247 (HC)

Court High Court of Tanzania - Dodoma

Judge Ruhumbika J

27th May, 1987. A

(PC) CIVIL APPEAL 14 OF 1986

Flynote

Civil Practice and Procedure - Attachment - A person's head of cattle attached to

satisfy a compensation order against B his brother - Attachment unlawful.

-Headnote

The respondent sued the appellant for recovery of 17 heads of cattle unlawfully seized

by the appellant to satisfy C a compensation order against the respondent's brother

Held: It is against general ideas of justice that a man should suffer or be punished

directly either in person or in D property for some wrong which he has not done

himself.

Case Information

Appeal dismissed. E

Case referred to:

1. Gwao bin Kilimo v Kisunda bin Ifuti 1 TLR (R) 403.

[zJDz]Judgment

Ruhumbika, J.:This is a second appeal. The appellant herein lost an appeal at the

Mpwapwa District Court and therefore has appealed before this court. F

The respondent, Madaha Mganga, successfully sued the appellant in the Mpwapwa

Urban Primary Court for recovery of 17 head of cattle unlawfully seized from the

respondent by the appellant.

The undisputed facts leading to this case are that one person called Yona Mganga was

convicted by the G Mpwapwa District Court [in Crimininal Case No. 28 of 1984] for

having burgled the appellant's house and to have stolen therefrom property of the

appellant. He was sent to prison for up to three years, and was also H ordered to pay

compensation to the appellant. In execution of this order for compensation, the

appellant went to attach some 17 head of cattle from the respondent, simply because

he claimed that the respondent was a brother to Yona Mganga The respondent

objected to this unlawful attachment, and the Urban Primary Court of Mpwapwa

found for him. The appellant was ordered to return the 17 head of cattle to the

respondent. I

1986 TLR p248

Dissatisfied with the decision of the Primary Court, the appellant went to the District

Court of Mpwapwa on A appeal. He lost the appeal. Before this court in his oral

submissions as well as in his memorandum of appeal, the appellant still laboured

under the illusion that the respondent was responsible for the wrongs of Yona

Mganga, as B the two are brothers. The appellant has not in any event been able to

substantiate that the animals in question belonged to Yona Mganga and not to the

respondent.

This appeal has no merit and must therefore fail. As was rightly held in that old case

of Gwao bin Kilimo v. C Kisunda bin Ifuti 1 T.L.R. (R), 403 (at p. 405): "It is against

general ideas of justice that a man should suffer or be punished directly either in

person or in property for some wrong which he has not done himself". In that case

[Criminal Revision No. 1 of 1938] Gwao objected to the attachment of his two heads

of cattle by Kisunda in execution of a decree passed against his son Mange. The High

Court held that the cattle were wrongly seized D and were ordered to be restored to

Gwao.

The respondent has no obligation whatsoever in law to have his 17 heads of cattle

attached in order to satisfy a compensation order made against Yona Mganga, simply

because the two were brothers. This would be against the general ideas of justice. E

It is for the reasons above that the appeal is dismissed with costs.

Appeal dismissed.

1986 TLR p248