[2022] KEHC 12944 (KLR)

Mbugua v Kenya Revenue Authority & 4 others (Civil Case 25 of 2007) [2022] KEHC 12944 (KLR) (Civ) (16 September 2022) (Judgment)

Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 12944 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Civil

Civil Case 25 of 2007

JN Kamau, J

September 16, 2022

Between

Joel Kamugu Mbugua

Plaintiff

and

Kenya Revenue Authority

1st Defendant

Commissioner Customs and Excise Department

2nd Defendant

James Macharia

3rd Defendant

Umazi Runya

4th Defendant

Peter Muturi Gicheha t/a Volex General Motors

5th Defendant

Judgment

Introduction 1. In his plaint dated January 15, 2007 the plaintiff sought judgment against the defendants jointly and severally for:-a.A declaration that he was the lawful owner of motor vehicle registration number KAE 328Vb.An order that the 1st defendant do return in good condition and its own cost the aforesaid motor vehicle to himc.General damagesd.Indemnity against the 5th defendant for any sum of money of whatsoever nature that may be lawful due and payable by the owner of the said vehicle.e.Interest on damages at court rates.

2. The plaintiff withdrew the suit against the 3rd defendant herein on January 25, 2007,

3. The 1st, 2nd and 4th defendant’s filed their statement of defence dated July 5, 2007 on July 9, 2007. The 5th defendant filed his statement of defence dated May 29, 2007 on November 4, 2009.

4. The matter was previously heard by Nambuye J (as she then was). It proceeded between September 18, 2008 and November 4, 2009. The learned judge took the evidence of the plaintiff, the evidence of the plaintiff’s wife, Lucy Achieng Mbugua (hereinafter referred to as “PW 2”), the evidence of Henry Kihara Nyamu, the 5th defendant’s sales manager (hereinafter referred to as “DW 1”), the evidence of Ismael Mohammed Farah, who at the time worked for the 1st defendant as the officer in charge of approval and head of inspectorate, at the time referred to as DW2.

5. This court took over this matter on June 26, 2019. Following its directions of even date, parties filed their respective list and bundle of documents for ease of reference. The 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants’ bundle of documents and witness statement of Umazi Runya (hereinafter referred to as “DW 2”) were both dated November 5, 2019 and filed on November 7, 2019. The 5th defendant’s list and bundle of documents was dated November 7, 2019 and filed on November 14, 2019. The plaintiff relied on the list and bundle of documents that was dated and filed on July 10, 2007.

6. When this matter came up on November 11, 2019, the 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants’ counsel informed this court that the said Ismael Mohammed Farah was bed ridden and could not therefore attend court for cross-examination and re-examination. Pursuant to request by both the plaintiff and counsel for the 5th defendant which was not objected to by counsel for the 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants, the evidence of Ismael Mohammed Farah was expunged from the court records.

7. The plaintiff’s written submissions were dated April 16, 2020. The 1st, 2nd, and 4th defendants’ written submissions were dated October 12, 2021 while those of the 5th defendant were dated October 29, 2021.

8. The judgment herein is based on the said written submissions which parties relied upon in their entirety

9. Notably, this court was transferred from the High Court civil division Milimani Law Courts in 2020. However, this file was forwarded to it on March 15, 2022 for the writing of the judgment herein as it heard the matter to its conclusion.

Legal Analysis 10. Having considered the respective parties’ evidence and their submissions, it appeared to this court that the issues that had been placed before it for determination were as follows:-a.Whether or not there was any lawful justification for the 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants to have impounded the plaintiff’s subject motor vehicle; andb.Whether or not the plaintiff suffered any loss as a result of the impounding of his subject motor vehicle; andc.If so, was the plaintiff entitled to the reliefs he had sought in the plaint

11. The court determined the issues raised herein in the following distinct and separate heads.

I. Impounding Of The Subject Motor Vehicle 12. The plaintiff submitted that there was no justifiable reason for the 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants to have impounded and detained his motor vehicle registration number KAE 328V (hereinafter referred to as “the subject motor vehicle”).

13. He pointed out that the defendants only issued him with a bond on March 31, 2006 to attend its premises for further interrogation which he complied with. He argued that the notice of goods deposited in customs warehouse dated March 31, 2006 issued by the 2nd defendant did not state any reason for impounding the subject motor vehicle and simply stated that the subject motor vehicle was detained because the chassis and engine numbers were for motor vehicle registration number KAD 448V and that the matter was thus pending further investigations.

14. It was his contention that despite writing numerous letters to the defendants to explain the reason for detention of the vehicle, none was given.

15. He placed reliance on the case of Emmanuel Hatangimbabazi v The Commissioner of Customs & Excise [2004] eKLR where the court therein found the seizure of a motor vehicle not to have been justified as no notice and reason for seizure of the vehicle from the garage were given.

16. He asserted that the subject motor vehicle had never been released despite completion of the investigations thirteen (13) years ago and added that no charges were preferred against him for any offence. It was his submission that the defendants were the complainants, investigators, prosecutors and judges.

17. In that respect, he relied on the case of Erastus Gituma T/A Muchui Builders & Timber Suppliers v Kenya National Highways Authority [2016] eKLR where the court held that the tenets of natural justice require that no person should be condemned unheard and that no man should be a judge in his own cause.

18. He submitted that in their defence, the defendants (sic) only stated that the subject motor vehicle was detained because the engine and chassis numbers were for a different vehicle which was an offence under the Traffic Act but that the alleged offence was not stated in the defence.

19. He argued that in any event, the duty to test the veracity and merit of any evidence that had been placed against an accused person in a criminal charge lay with the trial court as was held in the case of Republic v Commissioner of Police ex-parte Michael Monari & another [2012] eKLR.

20. He asserted that the 5th defendant’s defence was that he was not to blame as he sold him the subject motor vehicle on “as is” basis did not give it the right to pass a bad title to him as contemplated in section 23 of the Sale of Goods Act. He placed reliance on the case ofPrakash S Shah v NIC Bank Limited [2012] eKLR where the court held that the term “as is where is” basis connoted that the item was sold at the location and in the condition the purchaser found it but it did not in any connote that the title to the item could not be guaranteed.

21. He also cited the case of Nemesions Ngechu Mwai v Julius Njaramba Irungu [2010] eKLR where the court held that it was the responsibility of a seller to pass a clean title to a purchaser.

22. On their part, the 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants pointed out that the subject moor vehicle had details of motor vehicle registration number KAD 448V. It was their contention that the copy of records of the subject motor vehicle showed details as log book serial number 1*3 chassis number 4*6 engine number 1*8 while the copy of records of motor registration number KAD 448V indicated details as logbook serial number 1*8 chassis number 4*6 engine number 1*8.

23. It was their submission that sergeant Stephen Nyamai (hereinafter referred to as “DW 3”) testified that the physical verification showed that the subject motor vehicle bore chassis number 485876 engine number 103478 which he confirmed from a tape lift that he produced as evidence in court which details were the same as those of motor registration number KAD 448V.

24. They further submitted that according to traffic laws, a motor vehicle should have details to which a registration number plate was assigned in line with section 5 of the Traffic Act. They averred that when the subject motor vehicle was registered, the particulars entered in the records were chassis number 485875 and engine number 103684. It was their assertion that the plaintiff was operating the subject motor vehicle which had details of another motor vehicle.

25. They argued that the particulars of any motor vehicle registered under the Traffic Act were not supposed to be changed and if changed, then the National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA) was to be notified immediately as provided in section 7 of the Traffic Act.

26. They asserted that there was no cause of action against them as the plaintiff herein was sold the subject motor vehicle by the 5th defendant and the issue therefore regarding difference of particulars was between them. They added that the Plaintiff had sued them wrongly as the proper person to have been sued was the registrar of motor vehicles and the National Transport & Safety Authority.

27. They placed reliance on the case of Tom Mboya Oduru vs Kenya Revenue Authority[2016] eKLR where the court held that the registrar of motor vehicles was the right person to have been sued for purposes of obtaining the damages sought and that NTSAshould have been enjoined to shed clarity in the case having taken over the mandate from the registrar of motor vehicles.

28. On its part, the 5th defendant submitted that the plaintiff conceded that it did not play any role in obtaining the second logbook and pointed out that he told the court that he only sued him to prove that he was the one who sold him the subject motor vehicle. He contended that he issued the plaintiff with log book serial number 5*5 as was reiterated by DW 1.

29. He added that DW 2 also confirmed that the log book was serial number 5*5 chassis 4*5 engine number 1*4 as per the sale agreement and that his liability regarding the subject motor vehicle ended when he sold the said subject motor vehicle to the plaintiff.

30. He contended that he was not the author of the log books as that was the preserve of the registrar of motor vehicles then and presently, the national transport and safety authority. He argued that if there was any defect in the registration details it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to have conducted due diligence and ensured that the details on the logbook tallied with the ones in the subject motor vehicle. He asserted that when the plaintiff noted the discrepancy in the chassis number and engine number, he did not involve him but rather he opted to deal with Kingsway motors.

31. He denied any impropriety on his part and pointed out that the plaintiff used the subject motor vehicle between 2000 and 2006 without any issues until he presented a different log book which had different details from the one he had initially issued him. He was categorical that there was no question relating to the title of the subject motor vehicle and that the reason for impounding it was not because it was stolen or that it belonged to someone else.

32. It was therefore his contention that the subject motor vehicle he sold to the plaintiff had the correct details in the log book and as per the physical inspection.

33. It was not in dispute that the plaintiff purchased the subject motor vehicle from the 5th defendant for a sum of Kshs 300,000/= as per the copy of the sale agreement dated June 30, 2000. This 5th defendant handed over to him a log book serial number 526925.

34. It was also not in dispute that the subject motor vehicle was impounded by the 1st defendant herein. What was in dispute was whether the 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants ought to have impounded the subject motor vehicle for having different particulars from those which were in the copy of records.

35. In his evidence, the plaintiff testified that he was issued with logbook serial number 5*5 by the 1st and 2nd defendants after he transferred the subject motor vehicle into his name. According to DW 3, when the plaintiff went to transfer the subject motor vehicle into his name, he was informed that the said logbook was not for the said subject motor vehicle as the chassis and engine numbers did not tally.

36. It was her further evidence that the plaintiff then applied to the then registrar of motor vehicles for rectification of the said logbook but the same was returned to him pending inspection. She added that upon further investigations, a report was prepared which revealed that the subject motor vehicle had details of KAD 448V.

37. Her further testimony was that in a letter dated January 25, 2007, the 1st defendant denied having issued the said log book serial number 1*3 chassis number 4*6 and engine number 1*8 emanated from their office and asserted that the same was issued to the plaintiff by Kingsway motors.

38. Notably, the discrepancy in the logbook came to light when PW 2 went to renew the road license for the subject motor vehicle. In logbook serial number 5*5, the chassis and engine numbers of the subject motor vehicle were shown as 4*5 and 1*5 respectively. This was the logbookDW 1 told the court was issued to the plaintiff herein. DW 2 also testified that these were the correct details for the subject motor vehicle. DW 3 testified that he physically inspected the subject motor vehicle which showed that the chassis number was 4*5 while the engine number was 1*8 and that he had found that the same had not been tampered with.

39. It was clear from the evidence that was adduced in court that the chassis and engine numbers of the subject motor vehicle did not match the particulars in the logbook PW 2 presented to the 1st defendant at the time of applying for a road licence. in view of the divergent views it was difficult to understand who issued the two (2) logbooks when they did not tally with the subject motor vehicle’s chassis and engine numbers.

40. Having said so, although the defendants argued that the subject motor vehicle was impounded due to contravention of traffic laws, the same was not explained on the aforesaid notice.

41. Section 200 (1) of the Customs and Excise Act, cap 472 (Laws of Kenya) provides that:-“Where a thing has been seized under this Act, then unless the thing was seized in the presence of the owner thereof…..the officer effecting seizure should give notice in writing of the seizure and reasons therefore to the owner thereof …" (emphasis court).

42. This court noted that although in their arguments the defendants focused on how the details of the subject motor vehicle’s chassis number and the engine differed from the second subject motor vehicle, there was no evidence that investigations were concluded or if the plaintiff and/or any other person was charged in court and prosecuted for the alleged traffic offence during the thirteen (13) year period the subject motor vehicle had been impounded.

43. According to the 1st defendant’s records, Hima limited was indicated as the owner of motor vehicle registration number KAD 448V. Indeed, save for adducing a letter dated February 13, 2007 to Hima limited in which it had asked that the said company avails to it documents to enable it conclude investigations, there was no indication that the said investigations were ever concluded. There was also nothing to show that the 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants made any efforts to trace the owner of motor vehicle registration number KAD 448V.

44. The copy of records for the subject motor vehicle that the 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants tendered in evidence showed that the same was owned by the plaintiff. The same showed that the chassis number was 4*5 and engine number as 1*4(emphasis court). A further perusal of the copy of records in respect of motor vehicle registration number KAD 448V that the 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants adduced in court showed its chassis number as 4*6 and the engine number as 1*8 (emphasis court).

45. These four (4) numbers were clearly different, a fact that the plaintiff informed the 1st defendant in his letter dated May 3, 2001. He also pointed out that the logbook of the subject motor vehicle did not tally with the numbers on the engine and hence enclosed the original logbook with a view to the same being rectified. A duplicate No 110913 for the subject motor vehicle was subsequently issued in 2001. It was this logbook that PW2 presented to the 1st defendant at the time of applying for the road licence.

46. The 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants did not adduce evidence to demonstrate that the log book the PW 2 presented was fake and/or a forgery. There was also no evidence to show that the subject motor vehicle was stolen. A letter dated May 3, 2006 from the flying squad unit to the 1st defendant stated that the unit had checked its data base and confirmed that the subject motor vehicle had not been registered stolen or robbed (sic). In the thirteen (13) year period, there was no evidence of reports having been made to the relevant authorities that the subject motor vehicle had been stolen and/or that applications had been made for its road licence.

47. The long inactivity relating the said subject motor vehicle persuaded this court to find and hold that the two (2) logbooks were issued to the plaintiff by the 1st defendant and he could not therefore have been faulted for the entries that were made therein.

48. Evidence showed that the said subject motor vehicle was seized in the PW2’s presence. The 2nd defendant was obliged by law to have given the plaintiff a written notice of the seizure of the subject motor vehicle giving reasons for the seizure of the same as was aptly stated in the case of Emmanuel Hatangimbabazi v The Commissioner of Customs & Excise(supra). Indeed, property ownership is accorded a high place in this country’s laws. In order for one to lose possession of his or her property, he or she must be informed of the reasons of dispossession of the same.

49. Unfortunately, the plaintiff was not given the reason for seizure of the subject motor vehicle. This was in contravention of his rights under article 40(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution of Kenya that provides that:-“Subject to article 65, every person has the right, either individually or in association with others, to acquire and own property of any description; and in any part of Kenya.”

50. Going further, the plaintiff was not prosecuted for any offence under any law and hence, the subject motor vehicle was not liable for forfeiture. If he was prosecuted, then the 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants did not provide proof of the same and/or demonstrate the same. It was therefore evident that the seizure and/or impounding of the subject motor vehicle was unjustified, illegal, unlawful, and lacked any basis in law as the 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants did not comply with the laid down procedures of forfeiture as set out in section 201 (2) of the Customs and Excise Act.

51. Notably, section 201 (2) of the Customs and Excise Act stipulates that:-“Where a person is prosecuted for an offence under this Act and anything is liable for forfeiture by reason of the commission of that offence, then on the acquittal of that person, the court may order that thing either-a.to be released to the person from whom it was seized or to the owner thereof; orb.to be condemned.”

52. There may have been a genuine mix up in issuance of the two (2) log books which this court could not decipher how the same could have happened as the chassis and engine numbers of the subject motor vehicle and those of motor vehicle registration number KAD 448V were different as night and day. Indeed, the initial logbook that the plaintiff was given by the 5th defendant was serial number 5*5 for chassis number 4*5 and engine number 1*4 while the chassis and engine numbers of motor vehicle registration number KAD 448V were 4*6 and 1*8 respectively

53. The 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants were thus obligated to release the subject motor vehicle to the plaintiff when Hima Limited did not respond to the 1st defendant’s letter of February 13, 2007 and when flying squad unit informed the 1st defendant vide its letter of May 3, 2006 that the subject motor vehicle had not been stolen. It was crystal clear from the facts of this case that there was no justification for the 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants to have continued detaining the subject motor vehicle.

54. Having said so, the plaintiff did not adduce any evidence to show how the 5th defendant was liable for the mix up. This court accepted DW 1’s evidence that he handed over to the plaintiff the logbook serial number 5*5 for chassis number 4*5 and engine number 1*4. He was not a necessary party to the suit as the plaintiff could have called him as a witness instead if all he wanted him to confirm was that he purchased the subject motor vehicle from him.

II. Reliefs 55. The plaintiff submitted that he had demonstrated that he was the legal owner of the subject motor vehicle as he had proven that he purchased the same from the 5th defendant and paid the entire purchase price of Kshs 300,000/=. He asked this court to make a declaration that he was the legal owner of the said subject motor vehicle. He relied on the case of Republic v Inspector General of Police Ex parte Kennedy Ngeru Irungu [2016] eKLR where the court found the detention of the motor vehicle therein to have been illegal. unlawful.

56. He argued that though he had sought for an order that the 1st defendant do return the vehicle in good condition at its own costs, it was however evident that the said prayer could not be granted as the evidence he adduced showed that the subject motor vehicle had been extensively damaged a few days after it was impounded and detained by the 1st defendant. He added that it was also evident from the 1st, 2nd and 4th defendant witnesses that the subject motor vehicle was still held at Forodha house thirteen (13) years later and that it could not move as it had been exposed to bad weather conditions and had depreciated to the extent that it was a mere scrap. He argued that in the circumstances, a return of the vehicle in the condition it was thirteen (13) years ago was not possible.

57. He pleaded with the court to order that the defendants jointly and severally refund him with the sum of money used to purchase the subject motor vehicle and urged the court to consider the value of the vehicle presently putting in mind the inflation of the shilling for the last thirteen (13) years. He added that the defendants should also pay for the loss of user, depreciation and the loss of precious time in the many visits he made to the 1st defendant office to ask for the release of the subject motor vehicle as well as financial loss in obtaining alternative transport.

58. He further submitted that although the said prayers were not specifically prayed in the plaint, he had specifically pleaded the same at paragraph 14 of the plaint. In this regard, he relied on the case of Great Lakes Transport Co (U) Ltd v Kenya Revenue Authority[2009] eKLR where the court held that although the appellant had not pleaded a specific prayer in the plaint, the court was justified in granting such a prayer from the general pleadings.

59. He also prayed for general damages for loss suffered for the period the subject motor vehicle was detained. He submitted that a sum of Kshs 37, 500,000/= was adequate to compensate him for the loss as his subject motor vehicle had been detained for over one hundred and fifty six (156) months.

60. To buttress his arguments, he relied on the cases of Deneva Company Limited v Kenya National Highway Authority [2014] eKLR, Great Lakes Transport Co (U) Ltd v Kenya Revenue Authority [2009] eKLR and Josiah Onyango Okello t/a Cargo Secured Services v Migori County Government &another[2018] eKLR where in each case, the courts therein awarded the plaintiffs general damages in the sum of Kshs 500,000/= for unlawful detention of motor vehicles.

61. On their part, the 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants submitted that the plaintiff failed to prove his case on a balance of probability and urged the court to dismiss the same with costs. They argued that although he had claimed loss of user and depreciation, he failed to provide proof of the same. They were emphatic that those were special damages which had to be particularised and proved to the required standard.

62. In support of their point, they relied on the case of Hangzhou Agrochemicals Industries Limited v Panda Flowers Limited [2021] eKLR where the court held that a plaintiff was required to prove damages and it was not enough to write down the particulars.

63. Due to the length of time the subject motor vehicle had been detained by the 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants, it was apparent that it could not move from Forodha house without first being worked on as it had been exposed to bad weather elements. This court could, however, not ascertain the extent of the damage as the plaintiff did not lead any evidence in this regard.

64. There was, however, no doubt that it had also depreciated over time. in fact, the plaintiff had used the subject motor vehicle for about six (6) years before the illegal detention when the depreciation commenced. In the absence of a valuer’s report to guide the court on assessment to compensate the plaintiff the amount he used to purchase the subject motor vehicle on the basis of its current market value, it was difficult to attach a value to the same.

65. In view of the unpredictable nature of life, there was the possibility of the subject motor vehicle being involved in an accident thus depreciating further or being involved in an accident and being written off or even still, being sold to a third party during the period of thirteen (13) years. However, although these were speculations, they could not be entirely ruled out and had a bearing on the sum that could be awarded in place of the plaintiff’s prayer that the 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants return of the vehicle in the condition it was thirteen (13) years ago.

66. This court was alive to the fact that part of the reason the subject motor vehicle had remained in detention was also attributable to the length of time this matter took to be heard and determined. These were factors that were beyond the 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants making it difficult to blame them entirely for the thirteen (13) year period the subject motor vehicle had been illegally detained.

67. It was therefore the considered view of this court that it was most desirable that the 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants return the subject motor vehicle as it was to the plaintiff as ensuring compliance of the 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants returning the same to him in a good state would be difficult to enforce. If the 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants failed to return it in a good state, the question of the plaintiff proceeding for specific performance in an already concluded suit would portend challenges.

68. The question of what “good state” entailed could also develop into new areas of dispute in an already concluded matter by re-opening litigation. Litigation must come to an end at some point.

69. It was for this reason that this court took the view that the inconveniences and loss that the plaintiff suffered as a result of the illegal detention of the subject motor vehicle were best resolved by awarding the plaintiff a adequate amount of general damages.

70. Going by the description of the subject motor vehicle it appeared to this court that it was a personal car. The 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants’ impounding and detention of the same without any just cause must have caused the plaintiff to suffer loss for the many years he did not use it.

71. It was therefore,the considered view of this court that a sum ofKshs 2,500,000/= general damages was adequate compensation as part of it could be used to restore the subject motor vehicle to a motorable state if the plaintiff so wished. He also had the option of selling the same as scrap and getting some extra monies.

72. In arriving at the aforesaid figure of Kshs 2,500,000/=, this court had due regard to the cases of Deneva Company Limited v Kenya National Highway Authority (supra), Great Lakes Transport Co (U) Ltd v Kenya Revenue Authority (supra) and Josiah Onyango Okello t/a Cargo Secured Services v Migori County Government & Another(supra) that the plaintiff relied upon vis a vis the inflationary trends.

73. This court also found and held that the plaintiff did not lead any evidence to prove his claim for loss of user, depreciation and the loss of precious time in the many visits he made to the 1st defendant office to ask for the release of the vehicles as well as financial loss in obtaining alternative transport. It is trite law that he who alleges must prove. The onus was on him to prove the same but he failed to so. This claim was therefore not payable.

74. As the plaintiff did not prove any claim against the 5th defendant herein, his prayer for indemnity against him fell by the wayside.

Disposition 75. For the foregoing reasons, the upshot of this court’s decision was that the plaintiff’s suit lodged on January 16, 2007 was merited and judgment be and is hereby entered for the plaintiff against the 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants, jointly and severally as follows: -a.A declaration be and is hereby issued that the plaintiff was and still is the lawful owner of motor vehicle registration number KAE 328V.b.An order be and is hereby granted that the 1st defendant do return to the plaintiff motor vehicle registration number KAE 328V on an “as is where is” basis forthwith.c.General damages at Kshs2, 500,000/= together with interest thereon at court rates from the date of this judgment until payment in full.

76. The 1st ,2nd and 4th defendants will bear the plaintiff’s costs of this suit. Although the 5th defendant was erroneously enjoined herein, the court did not see any application in which he had sought to be removed from the proceedings herein. Further, there did appear to have been a genuine mistake in the details in the two (2) logbooks that were issued to the plaintiff by the 1st defendant. The court therefore, deviated from the principle that costs follow the event and hereby directs that the 5th defendant bears his own costs for the suit herein

77. It is so ordered.

DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022J. KAMAUJUDGE