LAND CASE NO 223 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION)

AT PAR ES SALAAM LAND CASE NO. 223 OF 2022 GRACE RICHARD MATIKU...............................................................1st PLAINTIFF RICHARD MWERA NICHOLAUS MATIKU......................................... 2nd PLAINTIFF

VERSUS AZANIA BANK LIMITED................................... 1st DEFENDANT EQUATOR AUTO MECH LIMITED......................... 2nd DEFENDANT RAMESH NARAN BHAI PATEL......................................................... 3rd DEFENDANT MARK AUCTIONER & COURT BROKERS CO. LTD............................. 4th DEFENDANT

AND BY WAY OF COUNTER CLAIM AZANIA BANK LIMITED.......................................................................... PLAINTIFF

VERSUS RICHARD MWERA NICHOLAUS MATIKU........................................ 1st DEFENDANT GRACE RICHARD MATIKU....... ..................................................... 2nd DEFENDANT RAMESH NARAN BHAI PATEL......................................................... 3rd DEFENDANT

JUDGMENT 30/08/2024 to 13/09/2024 E.B. LU VAN DA, J In the main suit, the Plaintiff named above claims against the First, Second, Third and Fourth Defendants above named jointly and severally for the following reliefs: One, declaration that the Plaintiff (sic) did not apply for and/or requested for any additional term facilities apart from the facility of TZS 200,000,000 advanced to him on 25/03/2014 through account number 0150026001; Two, a i I declaration that the First, Second and Third Defendant fraudu ently, intentionally, or negligently, opened account No. 015002602 which now is known as 020TLOC19113006 for purposes of obtaining loan without the knowledge of the Plaintiff; Three, a declaration that the Third Defendant fraudulently requested for the additional term facilities and the First Defendant without exercising due diligence as required issued the said facilities; Four, an order directing the Third Defendant to repay the loan fraudulently obtained by him from the First Defendant and (sic) the Second Plaintiff is not indebted to the First Defendant; Five, an order directing the First Defendant to immediately discharge (return) the title to the First Plaintiff, that is title No. 125019 on Plot No. 2274, Block "L" Mbezi Area, Kinondoni, Dar es Salaam; Six, an order for the general damages; Seven, costs of this suit. By way of the counter claim, the Plaintiff (to the

counterclaim) claim against the First, Second and Third Defendant (to the counter claim) jointly and severally for the following reliefs: One, a declaration that the First, Second and Third Defendant to the counter claim are in breach of the loan agreement; Two, a declaration order jointly and severally to the Defendants in a counter claim to pay TZS 780,402,993.47 and USD 148,905.32 plus interests and penalties as will be to the date of payment; Three, interest on the debt at commercial rate of 21% from the date of filing counter claim until the date of judgment; Four, 2 interest on the debt at the court rate; Five, costs of the counter claim; Six, any other reliefs) this Court deems fit and just to grant. According to the evidence presented during trial, depict that sometimes in 2014 the Second Defendant intended to establish a factory at Ruvu Mlandizi in Coast Region mainly for assembling motor vehicles, tractors, fire engine and assorted hard-wares used in the motor vehicle. At its infantry stage, the intended factory run shortage of fund for completion of the project, where the Second Plaintiff to the main suit (PW1), Third Defendant to the main suit and counter claim (DW4) convened and resolved for an idea of borrowing fund to any financial institution, in view of bailing out the infantry factory. It is to be noted that, DW4 was majority shareholder of the Second

Defendant to the main suit by 50 shares while Robert Ndege Mangazeni (DW3) holding 50 shares along Ahmad Bakari Msuya and Martin Richard Mgaya (deceased). Meantime, PW1 was alleged to have been given a promise of shares to the Second Defendant's factory along being appointed as interim honorary/liaising director, which was done by DW4 vide exhibit Pl. In view of the promise for shares to the intended factory, PW1 volunteered to borrow on behalf of the Second Defendant to the main suit, and solicited his wife the First Plaintiff to the main suit (PW3) to use her house as collateral to the contemplated loan. Due to a fact that a house of PW3 although was located 3 at a very prime area of Mbezi Beach, but had no title deed, alleged to have stuck in the process at Kinondoni Municipal Council, DW4 who acted as mastermind to the deal, positioning as director and majority share holder to the I Second Defendant, board member and member of board of credit committee to the defunct Bank M, under his personal capacity, DW4 facilitated the title deed to be procured within a period of less than a week (as put by PW1), then it was handed over to PW2 for signing. Thereafter, PW1 processed loan and was granted a sum of TZS 250,000,000/= vide banking facilities Ref. BANKM/CIB/0775/2014 dated 17/03/2014 exhibit P3 where PW3 was a guarantor vide a mortgage of right of occupancy dated 25/04/2014

exhibit D2, in respect of Plot No. 2274 Block "L" situated at Mbezi Dar es Salaam, title No. 125019, also signed bank guarantee and indemnity dated 25/04/2014 exhibit D3, along bank guarantee and indemnity signed by DW4 dated 15/04/2014, exhibit D4. After a sum of TZS 250,000,000.00 was disbursed into the personal account of PW1 (that is account No. 0150026001, as per account opening form individuals exhibit DI), the latter crafted a letter date 21/03/2014 exhibit P2, requesting the whole amount to be transferred into account No. 0250020141 belonging to the Second Defendant to the main suit, as reflected in the statement of account exhibit P4, transaction dated 26/03/2014. 4 According to Nelshah Haji (DW1), on 13/2/2015 PW1 requested for oan restructuring vide a letter exhibit D5, where a loan was restructured vide a banking facility Ref. BANKM/CIB/1013/2015 dated 1/04/2015 exhibit D6 and a balance of the loan was TZS 242,000,000.00. According to Raphael Bishota (DW2), on 17/03/2015 a total loan of TZS 242,000,000/= was booked in the system and restructured upon the customer request due to failure to honor initial repayment plan. DW1 asserted that in 2016 PW1 approached them for a second loan of TZS 100,000,000.00 vide a letter Ref. MT/BKM/55/16 exhibit D7 and a loan of TZS 100,000,000.00 was granted vide banking facility Ref. BANKM/CIB/1581/2016 dated 25/05/2016 exhibit D8.

DW1 stated that the loan in exhibit D8 the guarantors were PW3 and DW4. DW1 stated that thereafter PW1 requested for a loan of TZS 300,000,000.00 for Mlandizi Project, which was granted vide banking facilities Ref. BANK/CIB/0165/2017 dated 10/01/2017 exhibit Dll. DW1 tendered a letter Ref. MT/BKM/16/17 dated 20/01/2017 exhibit D10, where PW1 alleged asked disbursement of a sum of TZS 300,000,000.00, then submitted a letter dated 11/01/2017 exhibit D8 and another part of exhibit D9, in each letter asked for transfer of TZS 150,000,000.00 into the account of the Second Defendant to the main suit. DW1 asserted that after disbursement, the customer was paying slowly, the account was operating in debt, the customer 5 was not paying instalment in time, monthly instalments passed on account, ’and i instalment were placed on debit due to absence of fund. DW1 asserted that PW1 asked to open USD account vide a letter Ref. MT/BKM/36/17 dated 15/05/2017 part of exhibit P8, then requested for a loan of USD 80,000 which was granted vide banking facilities Ref. BANKM/CIB/1268/2017 dated 15/05/2017 exhibit D12 or P7. According to Raphael Bishota (DW2) USD 80,000.00 were disbursed on the same date of request. DW1 asserted that payments were being delayed, but around December 2017 PW1 requested another restructuring vide a letter dated 26/12/2017 part of exhibit P8 for reason that his payment

delayed from creditors as such failed to repay in time. DW2 stated further that on 14/09/2017 there was a new loan of TZS 7,122,511.25 which was reversed on the same date, rendering zero impact. According to exhibit P7 or D12 and exhibit Dll, the collateral for these banking facilities was the same that is first legal mortgage over land and building on Plot No. 2274 Block "L" Mbezi Kinondoni, certificate of title No. 125019 registered in the name of PW2. DW2 asserted that as of 22/07/2019 the total outstanding debt was TZS 370,166,921 and USD 90,446.21 and later in September 2022 the outstanding debt was TZS 780,402,993.47 and USD 148,905.32. 6 DW1 and DW2 asserted that after prolonged non-servicing of his loan, PW1 was । issued with a default notice posted vide address number 33206 dated 01/09/2019 via invoice number M-3201-0819594742, exhibit D13 also P12. DW1 asserted that these notices exhibit D13 or P12 were issued after the Bank of Tanzania take over management of the defunct Bank M. PW1 acknowledged to have borrowed the first loan of TZS 250,000,000 as per exhibit P3, also PW3 acknowledged to. had mortgaged her house for this loan only. PW1 and PW3 disowned the subsequent banking facilities and refuted a claim of TZS 780,402,993.47 and USD 148,905.32, on the explanation that the first loan was fully paid. It was the evidence of PW3 that when she was following up her

title deed, she found the bank was closed. After DW1 had visited them (PW1 and PW3) and explained to them that they are indebted, the duo lodged a complaint to the DCI and later PW3 lodged a complaint to PCCB accusing DW4 for fraudulent transaction leading to the intended auction of PW3's house. It is when PW1 and DW4 entered into an agreement styled debt acknowledgement and commitment to pay agreement, dated 22/11/2019 exhibit P9 for a sum of TZS 537,644,416.21, which was executed before Emmanuel Gasper Njuu and another one debt acknowledgement and commitment to pay agreement, dated 10/01/2020 exhibit P9 for a sum of TZS 537,644,416.21. Exhibit P10 was attested by Kalage 7 Rashid (PW2). Also DW4 crafted a letter dated 22/01/2020 exhibit Pll to the Plaintiff in the counter claim, regarding repayment of outstanding of PW1 where he (DW4) committed to pay. DW4 pleaded to had signed these instruments exhibit P9, PIO and Pll due to pressure from DCI and PCCB. Issues for determination: One, whether the Second Plaintiff to the main suit applied for and was granted with various facilities by the defunct Bank M Tanzania as alleged; Two, whether the First Plaintiff in the main suit guaranteed/secured any other loan purported to be issued by the First Defendant other than the loan granted to the Second Plaintiff on 17/03/2014; Three, whether the First Plaintiff in the main suit and Third

Defendant in the counter claim guaranteed loans of the Second Plaintiff; Four, whether the Third Defendant processed other loans alleged granted to the Second Plaintiff; Five, whether the Second Plaintiff in the main suit has outstanding loan of TZS 780,402,993.47 and USD 148,905.32 with the First Defendant; Six, whether the Second Defendant involved in subsequent loan after the first loan of TZS 250,000,000 granted on 25/03/2014 by the First Defendant; Seven, whether the First, Second and Third Defendant committed any fraud as alleged by the Plaintiff in the main suit; Eight, what reliefs parties are entitled. 8 For issue number one: whether the Second Plaintiff in the main suit applied;for and was granted with various facilities by the defunct Bank M Tanzania as alleged. There is no dispute that the Second Plaintiff in the main suit applied for and was granted by the defunct Bank M a loan of TZS 250,000,000 as per the banking facilities exhibit P3. PW1 latter requested the said sum to be transferred to the account of the Second Defendant to the main suit vide a letter exhibit P2. However, PW1 dispelled subsequent loans, to wit a second a loan for a sum of TZS 100,000,000.00 which was applied vide a letter Ref. MT/BKM/55/16 exhibit D7 and granted vide banking facility Ref. BANKM/CIB/1581/2016 dated 25/05/2016 exhibit D8; a third loan of Tsh 300,000,000.00 for Mlandizi

Project, which was granted vide banking facilities Ref. BANK/CIB/0165/2017 dated 10/01/2017 exhibit Dll, where allegedly PW1 asked disbursement of the said loan vide a letter Ref. MT/BKM/16/17 dated 20/01/2017 exhibit D10, then submitted a letter dated 11/01/2017 part of exhibit P8 and another letter exhibit D9, in each letter asked for transfer of TZS 150,000,000.00 into the account of the Second Defendant to the main suit. PW1 also disowned to have opened USD account vide a letter Ref. MT/BKM/36/17 dated 15/05/2017 part of exhibit P8, then requested for a loan of USD 80,000 which was alleged granted vide 9 banking facilities Ref. BANKM/CIB/1268/2017 dated 15/05/2017 exhibit D12 or i P7. J In exhibit P2 reflect the address of PW1 is P.O. Box 33206 Dar es Salaam Tanzania, found at the extreme bottom. In the letter exhibit D7 (asking for a subsequent loan), letter dated 11/01/2017 part of P8 8i D9 (for transfer of fund), D10 (disbursement of loan) and a letter dated 15/05/2017 part of exhibit P8 (requesting for opening of USD account), in all these letters the font size and theme are different to exhibit P2. The address in the subsequent letters, at the extreme bottom there was an additional of email address: md@comafrica.co.tz. DW4 on cross-examination by Mr. Peter Swai learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs, conceded that the email md@comafrica.co.tz belong to his company. In a

letter for request for loan reschedulement dated 13/02/2015 exhibit D5, depict address P.O. Box 4468, PH: 255 784395151, 31/2 Mandela Expressway, email: md@comafrica.com which DW4 said the address, contacts and email belongs to his company styled Automech. DW4 asserted that all transactions for crediting in exhibit P4 were done by DW4 but did not inform PW1. DW4 stated that in exhibit P4 nowhere PW1 benefitted with transactions therein. Again signatures in exhibit D7, P8, D9 along banking facilities exhibit D8, Dll, D12 or P7, differs materially with signatures of PW1 in exhibit P2 and P3. io Above all, DW1 asserted that he never saw PW1 signing those documents and i nowhere PW1 debited any amount in exhibit P4. | Importantly, in banking facilities exhibit D8, Dll, D12 or P7, while referred to PW1 as borrower, but at the first paragraph on the front page all were prefaced with the following wordings, I quote and bold a suitable portion, '...and as per our discussions on the banking requirements of your company we take the pleasure in advising you that the management of Bank M Tanzania Pic (hereinafter called the "Banker") is willing to provide credit facilities (herein called the "Facility') to Richard Mwera Nichoiaus Matiku (hereinafter called the "Borrower')' This connote a message that the management of Bank M was convening discussion with a certain company, which connect

dots with transfer of funds to the Second Defendant to the main suit where DW4 is the majority shareholder, director and signatory as well. The totality of these facts, portray that PW1 was at no point involved or participated in the subsequent loans granted and disbursed into exhibit P4 or requesting to be transferred elsewhere. The evidence depict DW4 was the one who was operating and managing the account in exhibit DI as transpired in the transactions in exhibit P4. This adumbration takes into board issue number four as well. 11 Therefore, issue number one, is answered in the negative that the Second I Plaintiff did not apply for or granted with various facilities by the defunct Bank M Tanzania, save for the first loan of TZS 250,000,000 in exhibit P3. Issue number two, whether the First Plaintiff guaranteed/secured any other loan purported to be issued by the First Defendant other than the loan granted to the Second Plaintiff on 17/03/2014. A mortgage deed exhibit D2 clause (A) and (B) at page two, depict that PW3 mortgaged her house for a specific facility letter with Reference Number BANKM/CIB/0775/2014 dated 17/03/2014 which is exhibit P3 for a specified amount of TZS 250,000,000.00. Equally a bank guarantee exhibit D3, at clause (A) depict PW3 was a guarantor for a specific facility letter with Reference Number BANKM/CIB/0775/2014 dated 17/03/2014 which is exhibit P3

for a specified amount of TZS 250,000,000.00. The Plaintiff to the counter claim did not tender any mortgage deed and bank guarantee subsequent to exhibit D3 and D2. Above all signatures purported to belong to PW3 reflected in banking facilities exhibit D8, Dll, D12 or P7, differs materially with signatures of PW3 in exhibit D2 and D3. On cross examination by Ms. Upendo Mbaga learned Counsel for First Defendant/Plaintiff to the counter claim, PW3 disowned a signature in exhibit P7. Therefore, issue number two is answered in the negative. i 12 Issue number three, whether the First Plaintiff in the main suit and Third II Defendant in the counter claim guaranteed loans of the Second Plaintiff. In the entire testimony, PW3 and DW4 had no problem with exhibit D2, D3 and D4 where they guaranteed a first loan in exhibit P3. A challenge was in respect of banking facilities exhibit D8, Dll, D12 or P7. When DW4 was cross-examined by Mr. Pendaeli Mziray learned Counsel for Plaintiff in the counter claim, DW4 conceded to have signed as a guarantor in exhibit P7. On cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff to the main suit, DW4 admitted that a signature appearing at page four of exhibit D8, page three of exhibit Dll, page four of exhibit D12, page three of exhibit P6, is his deed. Meaning that DW4 admitted to take responsibility as a guarantor in the banking facilities

exhibit D8, Dll, D12 or P7. Therefore, issue number three is answered in affirmative for the Third Defendant in the counter claim, meanwhile for the First Plaintiff on the main suit I retain the same position in issue number two above. Issue number Five, whether the Second Plaintiff in the main suit has outstanding loan of TZS 780,402,993.47 and USD 148,905.32 with the First Defendant. This issue is by large covered by the findings in issue number one. Having answered issue number one in the negative. It follows automatically that the Second 13 Plaintiff to the main suit is not liable for the alleged outstanding loan of TZS 780,402,993.47 and USD 148,905.32 with the First Defendant. Issue number six, whether the Second Defendant involved in subsequent loan I after the first loan of TZS 250,000,000 granted on 25/03/2014 by the first Defendant. This issue is whole taken into board by the findings in issue number three above. Having hold that DW4 admitted to take responsibility as a guarantor in the banking facilities exhibit D8, Dll, D12 or P7, by necessary implication DW4 was admitting to have get involved himself in the whole scheme of meddling those banking facilities. This is for reason that DW4 admitted to have appended signatures in exhibit D8, Dll, D12 or P7. DW4 conceded to have participated in all transactions for crediting in exhibit P4 without involving PW1. DW4 owned

addresses, contacts, email appearing in the letters for a request of additional term loan TZS 100,000,000 exhibit D7; request for loan reschedulement exhibit D5; request for transfer of TZS 150,000,000/- into the account of the Second Defendant in the main suit where he was the majority shareholder and director, exhibit D9; request for disbursement and transfer of TZS 150,000,000 into the account of the Second Defendant exhibit D10, part of exhibit P8; request for opening of USD account part of exhibit P8DW4 stated that in exhibit P4 nowhere PW1 benefitted with transactions therein. DW4 owned MS. ACS being one of his company, recited Mr. Megere 14 who credited TZS as one of his accountant, Martin Mgaya who deposited TZS four million as his co-shareholder, Mr. Dubel as his accountant, Mr. Said, Salfehe i (deceased) who deposited USD 50 and Mashaka as his youths, all these had at I one point credited money into exhibit P4. ' These facts prove a fact that the Second Defendant indeed was involved in subsequent loan after the first loan of TZS 250,000,000 granted on 25/03/2014 by the First Defendant. Therefore issue number is in affirmative. Issue number seven, whether the First, Second and Third Defendant committed any fraud as alleged by the Plaintiff in the main suit. This issue is whole answered by the foregone conclusion above. Having ruled in issue number five to the effects

that the Second Defendant to the main suit is not liable for the alleged outstanding loan of TZS 780,402,993.47 and USD 148,905.32 with the First Defendant, the Second Defendant to the main suit cannot be held liable for committing any fraud act along the First and Third Defendant to the main suit. As for the First and Third Defendant, as prefaced above, DW1 asserted that in 2016 PW1 approached them for a second loan of TZS 100,000,000.00 vide a letter Ref. MT/BKM/55/16 exhibit D7 and a loan of TZS 100,000,000.00 was granted vide banking facility Ref. BANKM/CIB/1581/2016 dated 25/05/2016 exhibit D8. DW1 stated that the loan in exhibit D8 the guarantors were PW3 15 and DW4. DW1 stated that thereafter PW1 requested for a loan of Tsh 300,000,000.00 for Mlandizi Project, which was granted vide banking facilities Ref. BANK/CIB/0165/2017 dated 10/01/2017 exhibit Dll. DW1 tendered a letter Ref. MT/BKM/16/17 dated 20/01/2017 exhibit D10, where PW1 alleged ! asked disbursement of a sum of TZS 300,000,000.00, then submitted a letter dated 11/01/2017 exhibit D8 and another part of exhibit D9, in each letter asked for transfer of TZS 150,000,000.00 into the account of the Second Defendant to the main suit. DW1 asserted that after disbursement, the customer was paying slowly, accounting operating in debt, customer was not paying instalment in time, monthly instalments passed on account, and

instalment were placed on debit due to absence of fund. DW1 asserted that PW1 asked to open USD account vide a letter Ref. MT/BKM/36/17 dated 15/05/2017 part of exhibit P8, then requested for a loan of USD 80,000 which was granted vide banking facilities Ref. BANKM/CIB/1268/2017 dated 15/05/2017 exhibit D12 or P7. According to Raphael Bishota (DW2) USD 80,000.00 were disbursed on the same date of requested. DW1 asserted that payments were being delayed, but around December 2017 PW1 requested another restructuring vide a letter dated 26/12/2017 part of exhibit P8 for reason that his payment delayed from creditors as such failed to repay in time. I 16 f DW2 stated further that on 14/09/2017 there was a new loan of TZS 7,122,511.25 which was reversed on the same date, rendering zero impact, j DW1 on cross examination by Mr. Yusuph Mathias learned Counsel for the Third Defendant to the main suit, DW1 asserted that a loan of USD 80,000 was issued on 15/05/2017 being hardly a year before BOT took over management of bank M, in August 2018. Again when DW2 was cross examined by the learned Counsel for the Second Defendant on the main suit, stated that where PW1 was indebted TZS 600,000,000 according to DW2 it was still healthier for the Bank M to grant and disburse into PWl's account USD 80,000. After disbursement of a new loan of TZS 300,000,000 on 28/12/2017, only a sum of Tsh

1,000,000 was deposited by one Said Mashaka on 20/01/2018, and nothing was done to service that loan. Equally after disbursement of a new loan USD on 28/12/2017, only USD 450.00 was credited into exhibit P4 on 31/03/2018. All these facts imply elements of fishy transactions and fraud on the part of the First and Third Defendant to the main suit. Issue number eight, what reliefs parties are entitled. In his testimony in chief, PW1 merely prayed to be cleared to the effect that he was not involved in the loan. PW3 prayed for release of her title deed, explained 17 to have incurred costs for the past five years, she pleaded to be not concerned with other loan. She stated to have been affected along ailment and suffering. In their testimony, PW1 and PW2 testified in common that they anticipated to i benefit for the loan of TZS 250,000,000.00 sponsored the Second Defendant to I the main suit, by way of allotment of shares to the established factory by way of allotment of shares. DW3 and DW4 commented nothing on this aspect, instead asserted that PW1 pocketed TZS 50,000,000.00 out of a loan od TZS 250,000,000.00. According to exhibit P3, a term loan (new) amounting to TZS 250,000,000.00 was for a tenure of three years, meaning was expiring on 17/03/2017. DW1 asserted that Bank M was taken over by the Bank of Tanzania effectively in August 2018. Meaning that PW3 had ample time of one

year and four months to make follow up for release of her title deed from the defunct Bank M. A scapegoat by PW3 that when she attempted to make follow up of her title deed she found the doors of the Bank M closed, is incommensurate with her proposition that she only guaranteed a first loan ending on 17/03/2017. In other words, PW3 let her title deed to remain hanging with the defunct Bank M for sixteen months. For that regard, a plea by PW3 that she incurred costs for the past five years, to have been affected along ailment and suffering, to my view do not deserve any consideration. This is because there is no tangible and 18 serious evidence from either PW1 or PW3 that after expiry of the term loanjof TZS 250,000,000.00 on 17/03/2017 as aforestated, they waged a serious follow up for release of their title deed. Rather the evidence suggest a shock to Pwl and PW3 commenced after being visited by DW1 and upon seeing advertisement for sale of their house. It is when they lodged a complaint to the DCI, PCCB along procuring a stop order from the Kinondoni Tribunal, the latter recourse was aided by DW4. For that matter, PW3 is only granted an order directing the First Defendant to immediately discharge and handover the title to the First Plaintiff, that is title No. 125019 on Plot No. 2274, Block "L" Mbezi Area, Kinondoni, Dar es Salaam. A claim for the general damages, is

disallowed. The Plaintiffs to the main suit will also have costs of this suit from the Third Defendant to the main suit. By way of the counter claim, DW1 claimed for PW1 to pay the debt. DW3 stated that the outstanding debt is TZS 780,402,993.47 and USD 148,905.32. Having exonerated PW1 and PW3 from liability to the subsequent loans and vested the liability to DW4,1 rule that the Third Defendant to the counter claim is liable to pay a debt of TZS 780,402,993.47 and USD 148,905.32 which will attract interest at the court rate of 7% from the date hereof to the date of full payment. My undertaking here, is grounded on the fact that DW4 had committed to pay the said debt vide debt acknowledgement and commitment to pay agreement 19 exhibit P9, PIO along a letter exhibit PH. A plea by DW4 that he signed under pressure from the office of DCI and PCCB, has no bearing. This is because there was an interval between execution of one document to the other to wit on 22/11/2019, 10/01/2020 and 22/01/2020 for exhibit P9, P10 and PH i respectively. A request for interest on the debt at commercial rate of 21% from the date of filing counter claim until the date of judgment, is refused, for reason stated in my findings in issue number seven above. Equally a prayer for costs is refused for reason under issue number seven above. Counsel for the First Defendant, Mr. Adolf Francis learned Counsel for the Second Defendant also holding brief for Mr. Yusuph Mathias learned Counsel for the Third Defendant, and^^ie^bsence of the Fourth Defendant. W W’rf^tlMNDA ®0^2024 20