Primi Aloyce Mushi Vs Kasinde Said Mzeee 2024 TZHC 7248 (10 June 2024)
Primi Aloyce Mushi Vs Kasinde Said Mzeee 2024 TZHC 7248 (10 June 2024)
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
KAMANA, J.
2015 the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff the sum of Tshs.
loan on a friendly basis. On 8th January, 2015 both parties entered into
was agreed that the defendant’s business room located in house No. 5,
within Dar es Salaam be leased to the plaintiff for ten years and two
monthly rent of Tshs. 700,000/=. The plaintiff further alleges that the
2
(c) Payment of 25% on (a) and (b) from the date of filing the
On 5th May, 2023, this Court rejected prayers made by Ms. Jesca
defence out of the prescribed time. The record shows that, later on, the
defendant filed Misc. Civil application No. 274 of 2023 trying to set aside
3
the order to proceed with an exparte hearing against her which did not
informed the Court that he is the plaintiff in this case and that the
defendant is Kasinde Said Mzee who owes him money totaling Tshs.85,
He went on to state that upon her failure to repay the money and
vitenge, they agreed that she should give him her business room as a
pay him through the rental charges of the said room. It was agreed
further that he should rent the business room for 10 years and two
months. The rent that was agreed was Tshs.700,000/= per month.
However, the plaintiff averred that the defendant refused to hand over
request the defendant to hand over the room to him but she did not do
so. He tendered a copy of the said letter which was admitted as exhibit
4
P2. PW further testified that after writing the said letter, the defendant
said through his advocate that she owes him only Tshs.25,095,000/=.
maintained that despite the defendant stating that she owes him
Tshs.25,095,000/= still she did not pay such a sum. He argued that he is
prayed this Court to order the defendant to pay such a sum and grant
through the admitted exhibits, the question that comes is whether the
plaintiff has made out his case against the defendant on the required
The law is trite that he who alleges must prove. This principle has
that:
5
‘In civil cases, the burden of proof lies on the party who
alleges anything in his favor.’
In light of these principles, the burden of proof in this suit lies
squarely on the shoulders of the plaintiff. Now the question that follows
is whether the plaintiff has been able to discharge his duty on the
required standard.
6
tendered and admitted, leaves no doubt that the scale tilts in the
in Hemed Said v. Mohamed Mbilu [1984] TLR 113 to the effect that
“the person whose evidence is heavier than that of the other is the one
who must win.” Going through the testimony of PW and Exhibit P1 gives
KS KAMANA
JUDGE