Kibatala is a person I have known for over 20 years is not very bright person but very manipulative. He is an activist and this is the spirit that endear him to most people. Our learned friends Mutobesya and Malya will finally take the day in this case.Accusing a witness of “lying.”
The older lawyers also taught me that I must never directly accuse a witness or a party of “lying” while I was questioning them. Yet every week I hear lawyers doing this. This is usually done by the lawyer asking the accusative rhetorical question:
“Sir, you do know that you are under oath now, don’t you?” Or: “Is that your signature on that financial affidavit?” A rhetorical question is one to which no answer is needed or expected, one that is its own answer. Rhetorical questions are, by definition, argumentative questions and argumentative questions are improper, objectionable questions
A lawyer can argue to the court at the conclusion of the evidence, but a lawyer cannot argue with a witness.
So, this question is improper because it is an argumentative question. It is also unethical to directly accuse a witness of lying because it injects the lawyer’s personal opinion into the questioning. It is also out of order because it presents argument on the credibility of a witness during presentation of evidence and not during final argument.
It is also very ineffective lawyering. It makes me think the lawyer resorting to such improper behavior has no merit to his case because he is obscuring the issues by making unethical accusations directly to a witness instead of admitting evidence that supports his case. It also makes the witness so defensive that nothing probative will be obtained from that witness.
Effective questioning is subtle and appears to be misdirected so that the witness does not realize he is giving information helpful to the questioner. Basketball players who cannot feint will have their passes intercepted, and lawyers who are obvious in the line of their questioning will have the witness anticipating the next the question.
Accusative, hostile, blundering questioning puts the witness on guard and clues him to the path the lawyer is taking. It also proves nothing, except that the lawyer is very ineffective.
I
Kalamu 1 ukisoma hilo andiko vizuri utaona kuna kesi zilizo amriwa, maamuzi yake yakakatiwa rufaa na uamuzi kutenguliwa sababu ikiwa wakili kumuita shahidi MUUNGO.Na maana hasa ya kumlenga Kibatala ni ipi kama sio kuwanyima utulivu wanaomtakia mteja wake maovu!
Inaeleweka, kwa baadhi ya watu kama huyu 'comte' kufikiri kuwa kusifu kazi nzuri inayofanywa na hasimu ni dhambi, kwa hiyo hutafuta kasoro zisizokuwa na nguvu zozote kwenye maamuzi ya kesi ili mradi tu kuifurahisha nafsi yao.
Wanasahau kwamba wanavyofikiri wao sio wanavyofikiri wengine wanaosoma na kuelewa maana ya wanayoyaandika kwa uchungu moyoni.
😀😃😃"... what MATTER is... " 🙄 "Copy and paste" is easier than writing own words. Grammar failed you, learned bro! 😁
Wakili mmepegwa na kitu kizito sana katika kesi mpaka mnatafuta makosa ya kibatalaAccusing a witness of “lying.”
The older lawyers also taught me that I must never directly accuse a witness or a party of “lying” while I was questioning them. Yet every week I hear lawyers doing this. This is usually done by the lawyer asking the accusative rhetorical question:
“Sir, you do know that you are under oath now, don’t you?” Or: “Is that your signature on that financial affidavit?” A rhetorical question is one to which no answer is needed or expected, one that is its own answer. Rhetorical questions are, by definition, argumentative questions and argumentative questions are improper, objectionable questions
A lawyer can argue to the court at the conclusion of the evidence, but a lawyer cannot argue with a witness.
So, this question is improper because it is an argumentative question. It is also unethical to directly accuse a witness of lying because it injects the lawyer’s personal opinion into the questioning. It is also out of order because it presents argument on the credibility of a witness during presentation of evidence and not during final argument.
It is also very ineffective lawyering. It makes me think the lawyer resorting to such improper behavior has no merit to his case because he is obscuring the issues by making unethical accusations directly to a witness instead of admitting evidence that supports his case. It also makes the witness so defensive that nothing probative will be obtained from that witness.
Effective questioning is subtle and appears to be misdirected so that the witness does not realize he is giving information helpful to the questioner. Basketball players who cannot feint will have their passes intercepted, and lawyers who are obvious in the line of their questioning will have the witness anticipating the next the question.
Accusative, hostile, blundering questioning puts the witness on guard and clues him to the path the lawyer is taking. It also proves nothing, except that the lawyer is very ineffective.
Andika Kwa Kiswahili tukuekewe. IMENIACHA.Accusing a witness of “lying.”
The older lawyers also taught me that I must never directly accuse a witness or a party of “lying” while I was questioning them. Yet every week I hear lawyers doing this. This is usually done by the lawyer asking the accusative rhetorical question:
“Sir, you do know that you are under oath now, don’t you?” Or: “Is that your signature on that financial affidavit?” A rhetorical question is one to which no answer is needed or expected, one that is its own answer. Rhetorical questions are, by definition, argumentative questions and argumentative questions are improper, objectionable questions
A lawyer can argue to the court at the conclusion of the evidence, but a lawyer cannot argue with a witness.
So, this question is improper because it is an argumentative question. It is also unethical to directly accuse a witness of lying because it injects the lawyer’s personal opinion into the questioning. It is also out of order because it presents argument on the credibility of a witness during presentation of evidence and not during final argument.
It is also very ineffective lawyering. It makes me think the lawyer resorting to such improper behavior has no merit to his case because he is obscuring the issues by making unethical accusations directly to a witness instead of admitting evidence that supports his case. It also makes the witness so defensive that nothing probative will be obtained from that witness.
Effective questioning is subtle and appears to be misdirected so that the witness does not realize he is giving information helpful to the questioner. Basketball players who cannot feint will have their passes intercepted, and lawyers who are obvious in the line of their questioning will have the witness anticipating the next the question.
Accusative, hostile, blundering questioning puts the witness on guard and clues him to the path the lawyer is taking. It also proves nothing, except that the lawyer is very ineffective.
Lazima uitwe muongo. Maana muongo husema au hufanya lisili la kwelithat is OK but calling a witness a liar is improper
Kiingereza unasomeshwa au unajifunza kwa jitihada zako mwenyewe, mbona wapo wanafunzi darasani ambao wanakijua vizuri kiingereza kuliko walimu wao. Naona wewe ni kati ya wale wanaofurahi kujiita wanyonge.Kati ya watanzania waliosomeshwa kiingereza vizuri na watanzania nami nimo
Anzisha andiko lako lenye mada hiyo tutarijadili tu mkuu mbona hamna shida lakini hapa tujadili uwakili usio na maadili wa KibatalaMimi ninakushauri badala ya kumzungumzia Kibatala ungezungumzia umuhimu wa kesi hii ambayo mpaka sasa upande wa mashitaka haujaweka hadharani vitendea kazi vya ugaidi zaidi ya mizunguruko ya mjini Moshi mpaka Dar!
oh kumbe- twende kwenye mada sasaKiingereza unasomeshwa au unajifunza kwa jitihada zako mwenyewe, mbona wapo wanafunzi darasani ambao wanakijua vizuri kiingereza kuliko walimu wao. Naona wewe ni kati ya wale wanaofurahi kujiita wanyonge.
uwe tayari kukabiliana na kukubaliana na matokeo; tazama kwa mfanoLazima uitwe muongo. Maana muongo husema au hufanya lisili la kweli
Ukute wewe ni form 4 failureMie simuongelei Mbowe hapa-naongelea uchanga wa kitaaluma wa Kibatala
Kibatala anaweza kuwa anafanya hivyo unavyodai kutokana na igizo la kesi ya ugaidi.Anzisha andiko lako lenye mada hiyo tutarijadili tu mkuu mbona hamna shida lakini hapa tujadili uwakili usio na maadili wa Kibatala
Sawa ila iwe kwa utaratibuWakili mmepegwa na kitu kizito sana katika kesi mpaka mnatafuta makosa ya kibatala
SIYO SAWA kwa wakili kumuuita shahidi MUUNGO au kutumia maneno ya kumdharirisha shahidi.Andika Kwa Kiswahili tukuekewe. IMENIACHA.
I had idea why not Lisu, Fatma, Mkono, El-Maamry to be included ktk defence...jii kesi Kama kubwa hiviThere is one other trait of Kibatala's, however, that is more prosaic and down to earth - money. Compared to their other professional brethren, so called, lawyers have no obvious way of amassing wealth.
Engineers do major projects and are paid a %ge of the final cost (imagine 0.5% of tihe Mfugale overpass). Lawyers cannot use that ploy because their Client will probably end up hanged or in jail. Doctors are paid ernomously by grateful husbands treating their barren wives at birth folowing years of street-corner abortions. This wil be folowed by the grateful mother treating their babies. Accountants charge fees same as the engineers for taking your company to the stock exchange, or for certifying TRA Returns.
The key thing everywhere is a license that protects a monopoly situation. Is it a coincidence that Engineers do PCM, or Accountants EGM and Doctors PCB? Lawyers are scared of maths or science (HKL, HGK mostly) so they cannot be bright enough to command a monopoly.
How of friend Kibatala? He defends hopeless cases - smart lawyers will know this ab initio but you take what comes. The only thing he has left is his time, like Lincoln said, so they charge their fees by the hour and their expenses per diem. Kibatala needs to have his cases go on for days and days merely to break even. Initially he needs to buy (any) mercedes benz and put on Prince Philip double-breasted pin-striped jacket (these are for appearances more than anything else, very important to Lawyers for some reason).
There no really money in lawyering what you are seeing is dragging the time for the diem. It is possible the EU or the CIA are funding this, but mostly it would retainers for the makanikia companies where Kibatala has no name (that territory belongs to Mkono, Fatuma Karume, and Tundu Lissu).
Watch my words and stand by for idiotics and time-wasting tactics: ("Shahidi, mwambie Jaji kwa nini hukumwambia jina lako na kwa nini hukumwambia ulisomea wapi upolisi?"). To be fair to Kibatala ("mnyonge mnyongeni..") this applies virtually to all Lawyers and he is better than most.
I had idea why not Lisu, Fatma, Mkono, El-Maamry to be included ktk defence...jii kesi Kama kubwa hivi
It appears you are convinced that the witnesses are lyingAre you convinced that the witnesses are not lying ?