20171010 TZHC Dar es Salaam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (DAR ES SALAAM DISTRICT REGISTRY) AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL CASE NO 8 OF 2008 AUGUSTINO WESAKA GIDAMARA t/a BUILDERS PAINTERS & GENERAL ENTERPRISES .................................... PLAINTIFF VERSUS NATIONAL MICROFINANCE BANK ............................... DEFENDANT JUDGMENT Date of Last Order: 31/8/201 7 Date of .Judgment: 10/10/2017 Munisi,J The plaintiff herein above, Augustino Wesaka Gidamara t/a Builders Painfars & General Enterprises instituted the present suit against the defendant, seeking a rarige of reliefs. It is important to point out at the e9,1liest that, this is a second judg~ent following the nullification by the Court of Appe~I of the initial judgment by Justice Bongole on the ground that there was non-<:ompliance of Order XVIII Rule 10( 1) of the Civil Pr')cedure Code, Cap 33 RE 2002. lnitial!y, I had presided over the trial of this case up to the closure of the plaintiff's case in May 2013 when I got transferred to another 1 " work station. Justice Bongole who took over the conduct of the trial took the defence evidence and prepared the judgment which was nullified. Following the order for retrial from where I had ended in 2013s, I took over the trial by hearing the defence hence the present judgment. Unfortunately the retrial has met some unexpected huddle upon being informed that the exhibits which were tendered in the initial trial had all been misplaced within the court's hand during the appeal to the Court of Appeal processes. Due to that reality, considering the stage the trial was and the age of the case coupled with the fact that the documents got misplaced in the hands of the court officials, prudence dictated that the case should proceed based on the copies. Fortunately both sides were at one that the said copies reflected the s•.Jb£tc:nr:-e cf the exhibits it had tendered in court during the initial trial. It is for that reason that for expedient purposes, the exhibits I am going to use in deter111ining this suit comprise only of copies. From the pleadings, the facts upon· which the suit is predicated which have been strongly disputed by the defendant, revolve around an alleged negligent acts committed by ~he defendant following irregular transfer of money credited by 'i·he plaintiff in hls account at NMB Mwenge Branch. The cause of action cs averred by the plaintiff is best explained by the plaintiff himself from paragraph 3 of his plaint as follows: 3. That the Plaintiff's clcim against the Defen~ant is for the , who has held itself out as a professional mi~conduct done by it's professional employees at the bank v1hils handling the 2 " Plaintiff's business account no 2033500023 located at llala NMB Branch in total breach of banking law and ethics. 4. That on 17th September 2007 while the Plaintiff was making an inter-branch bank deposit transaction, the Mwenge NMB Branch cashier, without instructions or consultation with the Plaintiff unethically divided a lump-sur.1-depo~:t of Tanzanian sixty million into three equal installments and deposit them into the Plaintiff's account an act which dravv ir.--;age that the Plaintiff i11ade three transaction of banking the said money on the same day (date). 5. That upon the culmination of the tran:;fer, and having information of the said transfer been transmitt:d to.NMB llc:a . • ~ranch ,.ft..1here the bank account of the Pla:ntif?.:, located the Bank orncers at llala informed the police ab'.:'ut cm alleged . :; ,· suspicious banking transaction made by the ?la~ntiff; · 6. That \A/hen the Plaintiff went to opera+8 11is account, unknow:1 to him that he was already a c:;:Jspect of an "alleged unlawful banking transaction" was. !;Ucjected to a.:1 embarrassing police arrest, ransacking, con~i'.:'.caticn of his bank books and banking slips before finally '.Jeing arrestee and pu·:· u~der police cu-:;tody; 7. That during hi:; crrsst, ·i;he Plaintiff V•./C~_ sub}ncted .... o incommunicado imprisonment without any beip of his legal Counse:, harassment, torture and severe stresf, of mental and body. 3 8. That further-more, the Plaintiff was kept in police custoc!v without being formally charged from 20 th September until 24 th September when he managed to secure polic'3 bail. The plaintiff avers further that in addition to the harassment he received, he kept on been subjected to police_ '11istreatment at the same time demanding payment of money. Further that he lost business because of the denial to operate his bank account. Also that he had taksn -a loan., of TShs. 30,000,000/= ,vhi::~ he failed to honou'" due to the incide:1t. As a consequs;'.::9 t~s;-eof, hs resorted to filing f:1e present suit claiming for the f0Jlo·:1inc: ~eliefs: (i) ;\pology for tre trouble, unethical ::ind unla\Atf'-·I ; t handling of client's account and breach cf client's ccnfidentiality code. (ii) Damages for unethical and unIa,,vf 1.JI hc::1dling of dient's account and breach of client's confidentiality code .....TSHS. 40,G00,000/- (iii) $:pecific damages· based· on failure to - . c'0 ~•13lness as -_- ·:'1d:cated in pars:gragh ! 0 above -cs:~13. ~:.?.SQ0,00Q/- : (iv) Credit of TSHS. !iJ,000,000/- en 17 th ~.9;:;-~·.;~:-:.~:-~r \ .. - _,_ 2007.. . . · ,. _-_ ' (v} A monthly ·int.ersst of 3,000,000/~ U!'-)O'.: ·<:: 3.)·,:•00,000/- co:1~-:-act of money received :rcr'r' 1'',CJ;-';i;-:-1 _ Bugo::;_ ·'vt;uguri frcm S-ep~ember until the -~.~;c:~2:.·/ .i: crec!itec'. ':Y/ '·he Ban!<:; as :;·fvted i!l paragrap:1 -~ 1. (vi) TSHS. 2,500,000/- per rr.onth for foilure to cc:?duct r.1y beer; soda and general .merchandisi =:to;·e i..1:1til the man J.J. er •1s c Iose d ; (vii) TShs. 20,000,000/= being general d::,mc:ges for stress. embarrassment, torture/harassmer.1· t:nd unlawt;! det9ntion by the police 20,000,000/- (viii) The Defendant pays the Plaintiff costs of the suit. In the Written Statement of defence filed by the defendant, e raised a def9nce of total denial, claiming that, +here was no money deposited by the pla:ntiff at Mwenge brcnc'.1 G!; alleged L1 .. fhe plaint. To substanticte his clai.m, i:; lalntiff called three v ':::·:r~essss and in opposition the defenda:1t called two witnesses. Before t:1e hearing began, the court considered and adopted the agreed issues filed by the counsel to the respective parties as follows: •. : !ret'"'e" on 17th September 2007, th~ plGhtiff deposited the s1 :r.1 or Tanzania ~~i:!lirJs 60,000,000,'= :n•\: cc~0~nt No .J'· 2033D\}D023. · 2. Whethia:- the soid ·~.:ihzc:nia shlllings .f;~, ~--0-~ ,U~O/= fraud•J:e~tly credited in:~o pl.aint1H" A.::c ::.'unt No 203350G023~ 3. Whsthe~ the defenc::mf's employee dh,,:c:s-,:'. !·..:n1p sun1 o·~ Tanzc:::i·:; Shi:lings 60,~YJO,G-()C/=. into thres !;~,::·:c~l~1-snts and - deposited the same i:--ito plaintiff's accou:~·:· \Vl~tiout prior: ----------<~-0As-en:t-'E'.:t1d-0r-e-1Jthor;zat:~n from the plain?.·?· .. 4. Whetbe:- the plain:·i~"i ·:o:!0wing incident allovvGd to operate !-:.is bo.nk account. 5 .. I 5. If issue No 4 above 1s i:1 the affirmative, w::91her there are legal justification for not allowing plaintiff to operate the. account. 6. Whether the plaintiff before the incident had obtained credi~ of Tshs. 30,000.,COO/= from Martin '6ugo~i Mu~ugt..:ri. 7. To wh:i~ r3lief(s) are tr.e parties entitled. Presenting his case, plaintiff, Augustina Gidamara ·:·3.::·mieci as PW 1 and under the guidance of his advocate, Mr. M\v:i;·:::::bu, learned counsel, he te:;tified to the effect that; he operate.; a business ai· ' Banana area, Ukonga and he said he owns· a company by the name of Bui!ders Paints & General Enterprises in ,-vhic:1 he is a director. He ,,vent on that on 17/9/2007 he went to 'l\'azo Hi:I - Factory to bvy cement, he_ hc'Never learnt that ttie r:·0-::::9pure had changer; ans :-e w.as require:! to pay money throug:1 G:~ :1ge:1t ·j·o get the ce!'".~2:1t, he tr.us c'.~cided lo 98 back. 1_:~c;: -:irri·,cl 'a,:· Mwenge ares: i~ occurred to ~~lm that it 'Nas unscfn ·:·'."". \M::i:k around vvith the cash he had, i.e. TShs; 60,000,000/=, he ~:~:1:; cf~cided to deposit the same in his acco·Jnt No 2033500023 a·:: .i'- ',,"'e:1ge Ntv\3 Branch. PWl tendered the ~cnk Statement to si~r-Y:-' ~-ha: ~he sqid · mone \/1 WO"'J. c •.e""'C·s·1t 1 t-1 ·._.'-'. d c·::7c':.:'· 0 , . ... 1 ~-:, 1_1'...,_.· c-rr""\e 'NOS· adm. ... ~.:11. . jJ.-~'::, ·:-' _·--·~ ,-:c_',,',;'---·1t Pl· . 1.1_,.,,...,_._ _ . ...... :'·--~--· . . . •, 7 . PV\11 tesHfie~'. further thct hn de~c3ited· the ~c.i~'. ;-:-t.:; 0 ev in one installment end obtained .a receipt to the effecL Fe_ ~xplaineC: - - - - ----·-----------, that half of t 11s money w,;:s obtai;1ed from his bv::;:1e~s _end t'.~e other half he :'.tad securec:'. c; loan from one Mc:··'.\:~ AJ\ruguri, h·e tendered a ;:'.c:cument tit:sr::'. Acknc·-vlec.gemer~ ?7 D~_::>t which 'I' I. • 1• was admittec. :1s exhibit P2 cdding that he had. r:of done any withdrawal from any bank before 17/9/2007. PWl went on thot the following day, i.e. 18/9/.?00?,.hs issued ~ cheque of TShs. 1,400,750 to ore Shempemba, a Peps:- C-;.)IC! ager{ and another one of TShs. 950,000/= to Sixbert fv'\a:1yema, at the same day he credited his account with TShs. 200,0JC' ·=. r'e testified further that b0th cheques were not honoured by :t:,e bank. On 20/9/2007, he vi~ited hi~ bank to credit monev c~· ·' .:.e -s·:n1s tir.e 1 make inqui~is: as to why his cheques v-.1ere beinJ dis'.:0n3urec. Upon arrivcl. he learnt that the cheques had b0':)n im'.=)ounded. and he was c:-~(ed to see the :na;1ager one Mr. Leo:~:·~c• ·vr,om he noted was engcged in a telephone conversatio:1. ·" :-;0n ·,·:1ereafter an armed pclice officer appeared and he was pu·:· '.li!C'. s:· re,strait,t . for dbc(\' 3 hours ond was la~9r taken to the Certi·r:·; :7'oli~.:e S~·atio:1 \A~here he was l8cked up till the following day V✓hei·, he le--::r1t fro~, the .investiga~()r ti1at there \.Vas a ~heft occurrence. =-~- t~e -~~ank. :-:e v1as_ then ta~~9n to his office v1here a search t~::;k ;::cc9 end ~1& handed the~ al: the documents iricluding his ch.s -:c.:e _'.:;:)cks . . ' an-:' ., pcying slips.- H:s home wa~ ~·acrched cilso ·er:' ·J.•-.,.>:;- o'.·; ):( ::1,~,--:-~ • cash T~hs. 200,000/=, hi!; wif.s'3 p~bperty. He v-.1 c:s ~-'.· :;:-3c:'·:·3r ~-ake:1 l::'ack to the Ce:1tral P-olice S:::t:0n '"there he w_::is :,-'-~YT~'"'sc! he \'-'CS G thief dnd , ..,:,c.:, 'locked fc:· -3 · dav:;. After the ? .:lav3· he. V-'.CS .. ' I . • released on sor.dition that !~3 rel'.?orts to the Ceri':·I·:-:' Fo1:c3 Stati-or. · once every H._~e~k, he wc;s :-_-_')·:-,ever adviced late;· b';' h:t :zi,N3/er :·c stop doing t~-:;~· a:1d since then noboi::y hcd bsthe:·:c :; 1--:ilrn. He s8'.:2 he stopped Ci:'erating hi3 accouht on 30/11/2007, ·:·.-· c:-<:.-;d ~L.;:·ther problems after being stopp9d by the bank c r;: :: ::::.:; >:::-:::'. ·_~;r:::-: ' - ' ( ., informed tho~ the matter is in the hands of t:-1~. polica but :'"'o criminal case .'vcs filed aga:nst hir.1. He thus prayec'. ·_~'):- ·:·:-:? coL~,·:· '.·') order: .1. the bonk to credit back TShs 60,000,0')~==, :1t: mor.ey reversed by the bank; 2. Written apology frorr. the bank; 3. Payment of TShs. 40,000,000/= for the unethical acts; .~. PG','ment cf TShs. 20,000,COO/=- for harassn1ent end torture; 5. ln-:·e,est on the loan of TShs. 30,000,000/= monthly; 6. Payment of TSL-is. 2,500,000/= per month as business profit since Septembe~ 2007 to the conclusion of t:1e case a:1d 7. the costs of the suit. On being cross examined I:)~, Mr. Kambo, lecrne :J c:>L''.'"1sel, PVYl said he has been the NMB customer for a lcii~ tit~l() and :;:s account ncme is lsaka Gidamara because ls,::i::a Gidania;-s: <\ugustino :s also his name. H8 in."isted that whe:1 :~e c~·3n?cl. t:1e • •. • ~. : ·- . _7 ' • t . ( ' . accou---\ f1e S',jbmitted the requisite documents inc 11 : ji:--;;; b".Jsine~s licence, TIN nu!'nber, ex~ract format, extract frcm t:-:3 rec; 1:;trar wi-~i-1 · the names o·:- lsaka Gidamc:r':l end '.(abula AL'Q'....'~·,:-'b t--::::,ula. He admitted tho~- 1he pi"aint ~~-ow the name of ··:·'.,: · :-:-: :i-ntiff GS Augustina VVesa'ca Gidamara, he however mc1nts_:.~ed ~-:--:at to his underst'andin;i_ and legally, <·:-:ose names are on 0 .. '"J";C. ·:·.:-:e sarrs one his clain~ :s lc:vv1fuL H9 s:-:"id_his -::cc6unt ls at llc'.c : r T7 :::'1 bu-; ?1e ;:-,10:1ey in C:isS)t'Je .was deposited ot-Mwenge Br~:m~-:':. 'Nlth re~o;-d ~,6 the balance in his accou:1t '.:>store depositir.r,; fhe :.;::iC: TSi1s 60,000;000/= :--;e said he did not ..e~ember hcv 1~v~r •.:;:~n b•~?:P __ _ . -- - - ------- -- . ~ - - ·:....· .. - 7 ..:...·.-:-- - - - - _.,.-- -- -·. - ':'-- " 1"'QW_n ___ ,.,d ...., -.,I ➔ -exh:,b \. ...i·'•-p.: ---11·e·-·a--c: rr~ ,·,tt·,::'C,.,,.. _J_~ It 1 .. 1 _- \•_,...j--_._F.a" ·t ., . . l1cd ze--·-o -h-·.'. '."'' ....,:--.:-: J--"e- .:;r:-;:rd .I,;_ 1. • 1• _._,_•··~••···"'··• _( ,. ,.,;._ that the docl 1rnsnts proving. ~-~e deposit v-,ere ta'(s, :.::>,:, ·he pc rice upon been accused oJ depositing the mcney in ~r.:-s-'3 ;'.~.:.\::::lr13rri·:;., He said. he t:-iod to get those documents· froril ~~1.s· :: ) 1lc ~· •Atithou·~ success. He insisted that he should be believed thci' :1e ~:eposited the money and that ·he v1as not informed t:~ot -tho mone/ .. deposited in his account \A as · government 'mone·f. Hs said he 1 borrowed TShs 30,000,000/= from Martin Msuguri :::'~-::! :,gned en agreement c 1·though upon beer. shown exhibit P2, he concedec! that the said Martin MsL•g•Jr! did not sign an'fV'1h0:-9 i:1 the scid document. 'Nith regard ·'.·o the alleged change of procedL.:r,s c~ r 1 1:-ch(;sir.;1 cement at·',\'c:.::.o Hill, he admitted t:;at he had r: ~' ·:'.cs·.1t-a1ent ·;::: suppo"'t sue:~. claim. He insis1ed that t:1e TShs. 60,00C,JOO,'=-= ho.v8 'i"0 be :-eturne':! ·;·o :1is account in the name of :s~::<a Gl~am~ra Augustino a~ -~hat is his· name and he is the plc:nti~~: 1 ~-'.13 preser.·:· suit. With reg-c;rd to the relief of apology sough~, '.1e sci,:: it shoL· 1c.~: . -, - ce di:-ec· cc:i't: Augustino Wesckc Gida:-r.a~a, likevvr-'s· -f_: :· :·~-.6 ~isst c- ~ the reliefs. On being. re-examined by }Ar. ,\/\,Narabu, learn-2c c-:v~~el, PVn mointained ti1a~_- ne was ·telling the truth cbout :1is (?::-nes and that partners of his company are lsaka Gidan1ara and Kabula Au~ustino t~cbu:a adding J,hat ~he bank recogi1iz~3 r!:e partr,-e:-:;' , ' ' S·1gnaturAS· _, • H,a ....,, jr ....:~1·ed th·a·:·I J.(,. •.~.J1.) II._, C\ ,....cc-oun·t '"'as· ·c-,a·~.-:: -: :r J ..._., 0 -· .- •,(V . . 1- '. ·:: .....,_ .,_ .....,,. ~'•"·/·. nc·-r1-::-· ., '· .. 1 --?f 13uilder~ P-:·ln'~2 &· General c:::'t.3rprises -::::r.d Isa:~-:: '?::'.:;_~,-~;"a.~~ o:-.? C7 .-lhe direct~ :-s 0f the compc-.ny. PWT y.ias--Martin -David Msug•Jri whose evic'.enc0 'N:-:- -~o ·(~,e effect that; he kno·xs J..ugustino Gida:-nara in b•J~lness, ·a:--.~'. ···:---1s·:, are al~q friends. He ~ ·1e:--:t on that Oil 15/9/2007, ·;·he plcl;-.~·=:;=·: :::-~;:;-cached him and as!c~d :?or a loan oi TSh~. 30,000,000/~ -.ah:-:-.'.~. he 0~ds?.::j~c\ ··, ' . to him. He so1d .. the loan wos handed . over to the ' plain~lJ befcte . one David Nyanduga~ an ac'vocate who they arE; clso related. Upon bei;ig shown exhibit P2, PW2 said it was ;:·,~e _c:cc:ument signifying tha agreement ~lthough he did no'i' s:gn ':>i7 it. He concluded his testimony that sirce the signing o7 the CQCument, his money had not been reimbursed. Upon being cross examined by Mr. Kambo, learned coci1sel, PW2 admiHed that in borrowing _transactions, it is r:1:rmcl ·:or bo~·:1 partles to sig:1 ~he agre8ment document. He hc'l'-'•e'.·:F :o.id +';:::t the reason v✓'.T,t he did not sig:-- exhibit F2 is becau:;3 l~is 1,:-:·vyer cic'. . - i1ct put up a ~:ot for hin1 to sign. He scid the name c·; -:·he ::>~~intW ;:- · . . Augustina Gidamara and hcd never heard the .1a:-.1e ·~-f '.;akc: 1:-~/· · hes hea;-d the- name of Kabul~. L':' re-examination by ·Mr. Mvvo;-abu, learned cour.sei, p;.1.:2 said +0 his understanding, exhibit P2 signified that his lawyer v1itn3ssed the ._ :::)ayment of ~,oney to Gidarr.a;-a though :1e did no·;· ~:gr i;~- · P\N3 was t-f~i-::':ldJgc DcvidJAUkirya, an advoca·'.:,s.,_vho ,,,ifnesse:::i the sigriing c.; ey'.-,:biJP2. :-lis G_,·,;de:ice was to the·o-:(3,:t~t(::"i' P'N2.i5 · - his relative. 0n '15/9/2007, ·P'N2 and. ~-he p:air.Jf.:: · '·_":1:'.:,-:· .:-:-,::ea J·:·:-:1 with the in~2:1ti".Jn of lending money to. each ·ot:".';e>. He ;;cid P'.~!2 lent TShs 30,000,000/= to t:1 s · plaintlff on ·the ··sarr.,\ dci'' and the document, e~thlbit P2 was 2ic:1ed the next dav o;,:-:i. i 6;'9/'2.007. l-1-s . • • •~• -Jt --•~----~r--~ --~---- -concluded-hi\-~asfimo~y- S\~e),::)lci;:ng thot~e~,~~b:·:· 7: .i!; :'.i:1ed ::? only one pe;70n, the plaintiff because it is qn- c-:.":::j\A/;S-?!geme:1::· of debt henc3 it does not rec;uire the other pers3:: ·;·;:, sigr.. . ( Upon being cross examined :>y Mr. Kambo, learn@1::: counsel, PV✓3 said he knev1 plaintiff by the name of Augustine Gida;n~T'J and on both occasicns~ on 15/9/2007 a:1d 16/9/2007 plc:ntif: ::-:nd P\/\.!2 came together to meet him. He said upon cc:.sidering their request, he p,epared for them a document to ac'<nowledge the debt, insisting that such document does not requ:re the 3ignature cicf the other party. Further that the interest of TShs 3,000,C~O/= w~:; in occorc!ance v-1ith the parties ·wishes. He concl~':!eC: ::>v saying th:~t he kne-.•·.:: t:k:::intiff t-y thB: ncme of Augusti7~ ?(c:-::~:ara er..::! not lsaka Gk::!~mara or any other name. With the abc''e evidence, tv,r. Mwarabu, !earned C::)Un!:r-d pra·1sc to close the r!aintiff's case \¥r.ich was accordingly marked closed by the court. · T'-ie defence v-ta':. comprised of two witnesses. C'~': ·,,vc::; Ch.:1dL' . Kasomi, worl·i1g ·::ts a Back O-:fic'3 tv',~nager a·,· j\.i_\ '.3 l!atc: Braner: since 2014. His ~estimony was ·,·o the effect that he :~as 'Nc·ked with . N,'v\B {n diffe:~$'.1t -capacities and places whereb~; ::i;:;-ro"tly he i: stc:1tioned at -Jlola Branch. !-le soic.-. !i1 SepterPl::sr 2JCJ7 he v·-::i: responsibilitier hcluded en.su~hg th-:it all the tr:::";:.cc.'.;')ns '.'/era - 1 ""' 0 . ·._, ,._,, ·1ng \......~·c-ndur-·~pa' - . ._,, · sm· . oo·'·hly· I c+ . ' . .1.1. 111 .., e· b,..cnct...-. ' II anr' . I r~>,··".'.'\- f ., ·.. -;,,. ,;.A - ·. _, ·I ._, -''"',c;:r,...: •. ...,, . - _.,.,_• ', ~~· · 0 -.:::. __ "'[eJLat.ten.de. c\,bte-',vent-on-tf'v::t~\-·ith~rft:1e N,VE :)~~:;_ i}\: ..:'! n,:.~r.1c( ~ practice to t-on-cvy -~_rr]l?IQY~ ~s_ Jrom _olber:-br:0~-s~~G-:--·::~·h s-:~::z--J~ere i; L -.-~- -- -- - - sh~rtage or·c: branch is overloc~ed; In that regc::--:~:, as :~i.5 branch v1as overloacec, on 17/9/2007, c -~eller by the r. ::::1e :-.-:: Hs.rie-:•:, 11 I - I It- l serve as a teller/cashier. He went on that it is :;·xr.-:-:-1 for ·::he I tellers/cashiers after the day's work to convene an~) .2a;-:y out .the ~' balancing of -:-he day's transactions to enable tr.e· Call Officer verify the day's stocks. He said that in the course of carrying out the exercise, it was discovered that there were :~me vouchers :-elating to certain transactior.s processed by Heriet:1 TuM-7ifu yvhich . '.-Vere missing and the latter had alrecdy left en t:1~ grou;-id th~·:· she was not feeling well. As it was getting late it V\'C:3 :-ssolv~d th :::1t · t:1e issue will be pursued the follovving day. On the :11.:xri~g 'Jf thG next day, they received an inquiry from the Pak: '.:;·.:-!nQh :;eeldr.~ confirmation of TShs 60,000,000/= transferred to the ~l~inti'r-f's account on the previous day as its owner wanted t8 cc::h it. DV✓~ said that as r.o transactions of such amount we.€ +~=.·.1s ~cted o-:· rhe brand,, :is responded that the alleged trar.:-fer~ s~~ld L:°'e fictiHous and ~hc:t the said m~ney V\;as not receiveC: by ::1s bai1!c. . ' He elaborate:! further that, there are thresholds for e :ioh ::ategor:1 of emplqyee~. to approve tr':lnsacticns 'Alithin -th~ '-:in:c and it is probably for ~hct reason that the telle~ {Herieth T•..:r.~~:{a SCi'Ne) 'Nho .. transacted the onlihe transf.3~s relating ·to the said crioL :1t of TS~1s 1 60,000,000/= c!ec1ded to br0:ik the amount into tr.~zs ir.-:·:·a!lr.:e'."·;·3 of TShs 20,00G,CQ0/= each ~c as -~::) avoid obtc::::nc:· :-:'::';-:· ' 1 -::?i ·::-ci~~ ·.. - -- - - ... - - reports that Her;eth- _on_ .her -~N-?Y- .to. -\Mork· h'Jd, -::·~~s:·:-· by i·:~e - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - hospital, eFor:·:.; to locate the vo·J~h~..-s Jhat_de_poL·st:: ~~r.-~:: alleg2d · - - - ~ - - - - mo-ney -was still been carried out by the other ts'.:~:-s .. :he. sc:--;,e transfers wer3 done in the said :-n~nner by Herie~··1 ~0 -:!S -~o he ..., . \Vithin her th~ashold. Upon further scrutiny it was clso c!:3co·1ered - that a total 'Jmount of TShs. 69,000,000/= had been v/thdrawi1 from differen-:- accounts owned by the governme:it end, ?1at from ea.ch accoL'!1t the amount of JShs. 3,000,000/= hr:-:c · be-sn withdrawn. DWl went on that they also l9amt thci He:-iet:: deposited the other TShs. 9 ,000,000/= to other· _:'.·h~ee dH~erent cccounts an,j t!'lat upon such discovery of th~ s-:::h-3me sha tAndered a r9signation letter to her branch ar.d c!1~ap~ ~ared ~o the unknovvn. DWl went o!'"' that consequent to the discovery of th-a ;-:·audulc;;t .. scheme; the ;11atter was reported to the Fraud Sec:Fon \A/ir:1;;1 ·:·::-~ barik. Upon being shown a copy of Exhibit Pl, .O\·V~ ide:•y~i~i3d-1·:-:;; ·:·h;-ee 1nstal:~ents of · TShs. L.0,000,000/= each ~:-~~i~-~ ~ i:--; ·:·'.--::: :JldntW': acc:ou·1t on' 17 /9 /2C07, adding that be~-:-r~ s(·c:h en~~.., tre account ~1ad a zero balance. He also said tr.ct en 22/11 /20C7, the an1ount -:--~- TShs. 58,290, ~ 5J "v~ich vvas still ii1 tr,c-, :i:::coun~· v,,~-:, reversed ar .r-f _.lh-e amount -c:,::,---~ "0" 1' t" ·r; ;1-i..;.·e ~~c:-,--~ :-•. "-' ,...,ccou·1~·, 1 · · r..,1 j • • . I "".~. ~·:-.J~ ,''·i·;:::i. ~ __ , ..... ...J I ...., .... J ,. fro:11 which they had been '. .,;·:·:1::Jrav-1n. D~N l ins;:;te:-:~ ·:·::c~· ·:·:·1Qre v,·c;.5 1 no d 0 pos·1t ~-,...,d 0 by th 0 pl~i"'1•:f,~ ....., I • • ..... . ...., I I as no r1°00<:: _,...... _, ... ,.!:·_-, ... t . -·. I I • • ···.,~.1. ' .. 1.. .-:::• ~ ,, • .., •.. ~ ~ 0 )', . L • , _,_ . \ ~---· ~. . =:::. s-:: ·:·>:1} f·; i:-:s the p!cintiff ·:·c ,signify the allegec/ce-posi'i·s. HrJ 1 deposits were genuine, the;-e ·vas no need c: '.J:-~ ;::dng- ~1_~ 1 1 frcnsfers in"i'<'.; ~-~iree ins·tallme;1ts because ·:·he :;~ :-----:~ -::_L~ ..:!9 -· :1c' :-:. _ ,1-..ee u n do n e ·1n,_ o.,,...,e _. lot w1 · ·thr-_L.:,,.l ri· r-- 'o'.em. 1-1,~- _ .1y ...,..o :::i. .. :._ •.. :-.•·-:,, ..,. d:,- ,_, c., •·. ·'·•1· , l_ .,, ., ... .•.·.._-=- sdd c.mot.•_;-·{· o·; TShs 60,00'.")/:-C~0,= vvas not dec:~:~-.J~ ::-.,,-. Hsfrs\-. I ·~\.., """I~ ·---~e·1 ·th~ough VO· '- 1-h-:::i.~-~ as hc·v,·ng '-t- .. , r-ece·,\/-:::i.d r:~ ",....·-.•-. ~r•·'·'-,_ar· ,_...,,......,....+ . "' I • ,...., ,....AJ . - ... •• .. • - - · , .•. ._, .• , • ..;, she did 'vVOS to,p!ay with the cclle.c~ion and reve:~;_·3 ~'~:;~un-;·s o-;_ the governrr:~nt DWl rejected ~.+ro~gly· ~he c;;lc:;;~J .-·:--:J ·:·'.--9re v.,,.:.:-:. I 1 'I . any money deposited in the olaintiff's account anct '!'_ha1· 1'even the extra TShs 9 ,000,000/= withdrawn by Herieth c:-00!te:: ln othe-r 0:ccounts we-:3· ,located and ~eversed back. He :-rl:::!ln~:i1ed :~cr:- the alleged claim of TShs 60,0IJQ,000/= was fraudule,-:- otr·:)r'Vise i"i it was genuine, the plaintiff had a duty of produci'1g ~h-9 cccument~ proving the deposit of the same which will also she·•"-' the :ia:--ne of the teller whc transacted the amounts. D'.N-1 \Vas cre.;s-exam_ined ~;:~·ens:vel_y by Mr. ::•, -:-· ::1:· _ -:'.-:c~.~: :~: .. - -1~.---:-,rn.od CO',-~,.-=-! -.,J\,;,• ._, ..>....,,,. \A!°1th • 'V .._. •.•rega"d • . · · - ~'{he·t:"er . ·v• • mon-'=-\/ .L~ ...., ,_,,r·• _"" • -~~-- _,_.,, -,-il.~,-.'. '·:. · • I ·• # ·''-'- •• • - ·ihe plaintif:~ .o··NJ maintainec: 1hat there was no rr,::1:3~· :~::--o:-L-~<:· ir. plaintiff's account and that. the issue wa!: r0pc~t€':J by ':1is ·.· - ~uperior to the relevant authority which w~s the Fraud section:. I .'Nlth regard ~-~ the other 9 ,0()0,000/= TShs, _he scic lr.e ,~•-:ime y:c:s 1 1 fo\Jnd to '· ~'· 3 0een cr-editec in other three dif~erer:· , · ac;.; :;'.Jnts. :-,-{e said that HerI0·~h :1ad powe:-.: t~)_ tronsact withdrc'.v:·ls o; '...!P to TShs,, " 3,000,000/= ~nd to post up t-:i TShs~Q,000, ')CC.':.-:: -\A ·:~'.r1~·Jt t~e: - approval. by the manager, ::dd(ng th_at he die: :-~t :·T-J'V w·1a-:: .happened tc Herieth after- s·~-9 te1-;dered her lztt-:.- _: ~ r-:-.•id;;c.ti0n;. With regard tC' the fate of the :-:10:1ey, he said it ·1v·c..::, i"3' ·e·-~e-:: c ::-:'.: ·. - • , ·'- -'·hp . .L,.._ I • .J or·1g·1nr 1 ac ~ounts a..-c· Jl-.at· -1.. i -.... ·,.c it belong'-'d :.0 1 , ~• ,r· l .•:•~r.. : 1 1--~ ---,j•...,ti-~-t ·- · : ..__ , , , : -~-i => _.. · . ; 1 .:., .,. 1 ;., 1. . : • .,, •. should p~o':'L:ce -. proof of th9 paying in slips. .~-~9- ,_•1c .1.r-:i. WP _1;..i . s evidence by saying that he leamt that the plcintiTs file 'Nas not clear. In re- e·~arninatior. by ;,/~; Kom~o he clai'iti9.::'. ·::--:c.i'~ '.:>~'- saying· tha .J.I th 0'-' "'1'le \.'I.I'.""~ 0 _I -=:.. ·1o·t . . clear h 0 m- ,=-,r.·-.·~ thr11t ,-1- had rr,·,u,.; v:-;. ·- i ·- ";"'V'\e· · · .. - 1 V I .. •. 1 II '-",J II \..,,......... .., •. ,4 .• -.,\_,_, •.• - .). )I I was to the e'ffect that before 2012, he was a Back o·:·~ice .v\anage;- . - . C - I at Magomeni since 2008 anC: p~ior to that he wcs /-:e llalc Branc:T . ___ M_anager. He_ remembered- that on -18/9/2007, a -c1ieht by- the-~ --- - ~ name of lsaka brought a chac;ue of TShs 51 Mil!icn for cashin£'. DW2 said th~. account was operated by a Compcny !--:nown as Builders Paint 3c. General Enterprises and he tendered a c ~PY -::>f it5 Certificate of Registration v,1h:ch wcs admitted as 0xr.ib'.7 D 1 a:1-::i an Extract from the Registrar which was admltted _cs e;~hiblt D2. D'tv'2 went on that the partnern in the account were . . he cnes listed ir. exhibit D2 \Nho were lsaka Gidamara and Kcbu!a Augustine Kabula adding that the two persons were the ones \vho :--ad given ,. ·rheir specimen signatures as the account operators. Up')n being. shewn the Specimen Signatt,J:-e Card, DW2 iden7ifiac' it c:; the oria ~·. co;-itainlng the signatures of ~he account operators._ The Sj:'ecimeri :;;gnoture C:::·.d \Vas admitt3d as exhibit D3. H9 ·.· '?nt c:1 t:;1i:::·:· :n . . exhibit D3, t~e· i1a.me of Augustine Gidamara l~ r_-:;·~ f~:·J.uri!lg as one of the operators of ·a,e said account. He 2c:c·· th::t 0:1 18/9/2007, c che.que of TSh!:: 81 /v\illion was brou~ht fo'.· ccshin~i and upon being shown .a cheque leaf, he identlf1ec1 i~ ,:ind . prayed to tender it, t'1e same was admitted as. exhibit D4. I-'-:~• sai.:J ~h~t ~·ha . cheque hcc' '.~e~11 drawn by eu: 1dei~ Paint & Ge: :-:.-:~512·.:~p;i-=}s i!l fr;·;Jour cr·c'.13 ·tv.v✓inyi MohaP"!':3d '.:)u-'· ·;·he mone,·· ···:::s :"(J1-:)9ld. t-1 ?- - - - - - - - - - - - ~aid -the rea~-::)n why payment 'vv'OS -n◊t effech:ic' ·<·a:-::)ecau~,:.i J;:)Oll checkii1g t'.1e a-ccoun-:· de~·,.::ils they becam3 ~u~picio~s; :Jpon~ 1 foHaw up, they discovered a d~::>osit of TShs 60, 00C:,J~0/=, effect·0d through onHne transfer frcm l\i,wenge Brar~c:'"'. ,:;:·1 ~ ~,-T/2J07. However bas3d on the trend:; of the said accau::i i·!1e'//)scam9 . I 1S . \. suspicious of the transfer as the account had not ~)as,-. ~·te:n::dcting in big money. Due to that they decided to seek con-~irmc:fion from Mwenge Branch where the -money originated frorn. Upon making an inquiry from the Mwenge Branch, it was disccverec' th:it nc physical money \NOS deposited by the plaintif:· to his ac-:oun~ 0:1 the said dote. DW2 went on that upon tha·:· rec!:zot;o;-i, the':' wanted to inquire more from the plaintiff but by thei: he had fled after seen the situation was !:)ecoming suspicious c11 ~ he was net fc.und. Upon checking the details of his account, it V✓C5 c'.iscovercd · that the sar.1e was credited with three in::;tallr.1~nts of TShs 20,000,000/= each but it wcs discovered thal the ~ra:isfers were ficti+ious as there 'Nere no pc~' in tlips to support ~h~-- 0,9~-:-sit::. D'v\!2 scid he does :iot know a per!:0:1 known as August'.ri0 G:-; .~_::1a:-c ::: · • the custome: r8gistered with 1-he bank is one lsa'(c:. ~e r:: :-:d:.•de-::i f··h evidence '.:)y saying that the ·TShs- 60,000,000:'= c'. 1ege-~-1·o have been depos_ited in the plaintiWs account was not lc_\'~L.'I :--~;1ce ii1e bank cannot .::-€turn the sarr.e to_ the plaintiff. Upon being ~ross examinec :,y 1V\r. Chambiri, !e::::-:18c C:)Un~cl, 1 . D'N2 mcintc:re<,.·that he rep ::>rted.·:-'.1e incide:1·:· "to •'·"-i-:; r::-::·•.-c: ::i:~':' -. 1 investigation Unit . by tele;-,hone as i't reql'ir< j :r-:;-nediat-) i:itervention. 1--la said oner reporting, thct is the 1os·;- ·:·ims '..e dec 1·~ .,-: •i+.h ·t.he i<:s· .-··!•-· ... u0 -1._.... " -1e· ·w·as therc:·c/·'·':::,·- +ransf-::.rr·e· c!· .-.,,._ ·.,,.... ___ ·,.='--'--8-- '- .. c·n --h 1 ._1c· _.l.t_.,. ,,,_.,_ . . . . . I~ •.. _ • . _.,.__ -~ . _, •· ·,}-.Is said.the :-G::so:1 why/ViV1_1 i:-•/; tv\-:·hamed press-::·:·er.' :~_i:; --/~~c;ue to 1 ·him was be(;-:tlJ:'9 the omol';11' irr.'c,1,,~d \v_as te:,c'n·-.. ~) -:·:-1 s. : ·:·>;-es'.1olj of a normal . t3::ar. He . mGintc:l:13.C: ·:·ha-t·:ie did net-!-:!'.::.-·:-:-:: :2B:-son . ' . LJ,,' the name of A.ugustino Gidamcra c_nd -hod no.:~:· :0'!:'-s ~;e thc1· such person '_:v~s arrested. Ha said that the r . reversed bac',:: to their origina! ·accounts and t~ct ~~o~ :;-xhitit D 1 . the money cppeared to ho"e baen deposited ~r::·.~-_•£·:- r::-'.1~'si-:::·, , .J . I.) . r cash. He main~ained· that the name of their clien~ ·1✓as 0'1e lsa':a and not Augustino and that the account's nan-"!e wcs Builder::. Painters & Gsneral Enterprises. He wound u;::, hi: 9Vi~'ence b~, insisting that the inquiry mac!e at Mwenge Branch sho'Ned that there was no physical cash deposited at the said branch. ~Nith the above evidence, Mr. Kambo learned coun:-e: r,rayed to dcse the de-;or.ce case whi-:'1 yvc: ac.cordingl• 1 r.1.:::·:~Gs: .~1:>~e~. By consent both counsel prayed to file final submisslo:. jointly. In his written submission, Mr. Chacha Chambiri, lea:-r~ad -:::0•.Jnsel ·fo:- the plaintiff, prefaced his sucmission by listing c'.: Ni'"; ·:·:1'9 :-3'.i3·~-= .. . so:.Jgh~ by· -~'.-e plaintiff toge~:,e,. with the issues f-·arr.s-:!. fc~ -~·r3 . . deterrninaticn of this suit. ~::--:-,;!ar approach V/as c:c'Qpt,~-d :jy :· A.::-. ; Kambo learned counsel for ~:,e defei1dant in his su!.::--::issicn: After canvc.~sing the evidence of both side.:;, :.~,. ::haribi~i answered th& js:;ues framed r:::ts follows: VV.itr. regard ·'.·n -~h·a 1st ·issue; ';,\~heC,c~ ~n J 7th Se?\'(~~p~r'i~o/7 ~007, r~e.\ . f ·Ji''· ..... i-. ·,-·~·.JI.I ..: ,. ..1i'= ~-.... ~_, . ..Jir J1,:.,__ the s-~.._.,,.1 ·,.~e..,.c,...~-";,...r~ 1 ~,~. ':'".ro""!'z"'" • - .,,;..~ •-.;._ ~; . 1a 0 .,.1...•1'l"1ng,.. . . .~11.• · ·' ,:r ·:·,'1~ -·-:'l,,f"> '-''·', . . •.· ... ,,~ ..... ~ 11, .... .,... '1~··..... •1...·• tic:ccvnt ~lo ~~3~~_00023; M;-. -Chc:-~biri c:-gued +:1ct ".·'.1rc· ·~ti P'/' ~ '.s · evidence, i·;· is apparenHy clea~ t:1ot on. . 1-;_r. ·::Jo:;·.... plalr·:·:-;; ._ ·--. confiscated O';' the police vine.; 1·:1ey seatche·:'. '.·.:s ·--:::u~e. 1-:e insisted that p;·oof that such amount was depositec: j:1 t:1':) p!ainti~f's 1: ,I .,; . . l . f I r. Qccount is the Bank Statemen~ ex:1ibit P1 ,,vhich !il~-.:~•_'t., c: 3".!::-1;-' ·:·raz~ ·- the said ar,\ount of TShs 60,0C'Q,000/= was deto5ite~ in t'.1e account on tha said date. He adoed that as the amct_1nts ,,vere reflected in ·:r.e bank cori'puters, it meant ths c: 1.lege:; Herietr. Tun1sifu Sa'A'e accepted the alleged amount. \Nith regard to the 2nd issue; whether the said iai':zania shillings 60,000,000/= \VOS fraudulen\)ly cr,gditad into plai~·l~'~:'Ys Ac~c:v~l M--:; ·2<1~35000~3. iv"\r.· Chambiri conter.ded that the saT-:J. -:-"noi.;~Yi of -:-s~:; 60,000,000/= :,vas genuinely -::eposi·ted in tho pL~in?ff' :; cccour.-~ · . . and wa!i not ::cJ.itious or fraudulent as claimed. He s-'.~bcrcitGC: 1hat 0 ... •, pvv1 testifie(;'.:1c'.v after faiH::£ to purcho~e cerr.eilJ. ·:·•~i'"CL'~h sc-!'~, i he resorted ·:·o depositing the · said amount ir. r.::: ac':::ount a+ · Mwenge l'!i':"3 Branch and. that this evide~~B '.V:.JS net controver~ed ~ the defendo~t. 1-{e argued furthe~ ~-;1c~ ··;1e three accounts wh:ch allegedly the' monay vv'as wirh:ji'"·'":'.·",r. ·i=:· ..1 :-n were not presentei.! thus it was rnere al!egations including thf) issue of · reversal of th9 amounts to "i"he original accounts . .f..~- this juncture, the learned counsel insisted -~·hat it is the principlCJ'•of lc'i' that r..e . . .y(:10 allege~ '.:·:'~:s to.prove he:--:ce.defsndant hor:I -:· ..-:;'• :t~, ~ .. ~ pr0\'!~g .. '"-''1at he cl!$ge~' -to be fic+J:ous deposi"~s. H9- :r[::-'. ~~~ ···:-.o·:· J.here been no prcof o~ the allege-:J. fr,:iudulent · .. . deposi"i"s, ~-'.-,:, .• 2nc =:;sue ·h:·~ - 'Nith regard :o the 3rd issue; whc·:·h~:r the d~ion:i.s::;":·~~-~~=o~,A~•------ divided lump sum of Tcnza!lia Sh~llings. 60,0DO,$'C/=- ,~to three 1 ~nstal!menb r.::r;6. depo~ited fhe s-cm,e into ~~:.:!·:,·:·~~r~ o.-::ccnni· .. w~thou·; 'pr;t'~. l':tJr.seri.t c~d ~.-: c,~t~l~!iZrJH~n frt•t:; -~,c--~ p~":;:f:ntm, tha ' t • • • • ', I ', • learned counsel making reference to PWl 's e-1idai1ce c·,-::-1 exhi~i-:· . . . . . ,. '' ·.,,.·=,·; . . PJ argued that the issue wcs made amply clecr. :-:9 in~i3tec thcr:· · . . • , . • 'II\. ··•.is from exhib:~ Pl, it is the defendant vvho dh. :i:!_ed -~~he TShs 60,000,000/= into three installments without the pla:ntiff's consent, instruction or knowledge. Mr. Chambiri charged furthe:- that th3 plaintiff had no control of the defendant's internal sy~~-~ms ar.d mechanisms :;, transferring t~e amou~ts to his account. He thu:; mointained t~at this issue toe had'foeen proved. 'Ntth regard to the 4th iSSl:)8; '."'ihether the plain~i!i ~-7-~~-:#·t.l!'.':8 ;~-::kl'!·-:~ ri,-- ... ,.,-:- --~ ,.... -~,.,. .-I~ ... ':'lo.-~·-·· · · d.·tr: ope.Ci.:- ..,, .c,ve ;. ·-,,,,~ n1s • · b an.-... · 1' acr.: ",.,.,,t,· .. ...... , I/.- , ... ,--.,....,.c:r-11. · i,:.-; ..... , J• :ec;ned coL·:.:el. argued that •the issue had b9e:1 e:-·~='.:;'.;she.C:. because the plaintiff's accc".Jnt was blocked from ~/10/:007 anc~ 1 ·'1a 'A/CS net ct~~e to operate :.'.". Further plaintiff WC3 -:-:;-re~--'.'1-J at 1''13 ,-.. - :t1::::c:t1•:: ~- e ~ ·i;" 7) defendant: rAmcr.ded, searched C:"~ ::s!:se t::>:::>!-: · awe_, -: : s · pc~ 1ing in slips and cheque book he.nee rei1qering it · impossible fo .. ~im to opera1e his current account. All these facts t taken 1nto cc;isideratio;1, ha maintained that ~hi~ :s:;us ,.,cs a:so proved. . . \·\',..ether J·he'=' . .0 -r-~ 1· . ' • t...~ . .,. ego-, JIJ:,".'1~·~-~110"1- fO"' ..... 0.. f. :-:-'I',. ........h.:,-.•.:.,-, ,-,•-;:-•~·-:-•~--· 1• • • .,,. . " \'C-. .. ,_·_• _ _.: • .. ~•-·•--•~: . . . ,,:· ''.··.••r;·"'.•·••. • ·/:, •••-- .• 1· • , J . """••'•.' ~. r.-ip~rg. ~~ ;~~c -:-_icc~unt, ..·~1·: ·c::cT1:: in~ lea~:1Gd ~0 1 _·;·, ... ::t :-rr-_:· Jsd_ tb.-:~ __ ;· 1 defendant _1~:od ·no legal .j1.•:;tifr:cticn · ·;·c bar 1-;-,9 ~1-:/~i(ff {rQ~ · ooerating his acc:ount. I-IS· i~~i::ted-ih.ot. :r{-:>:ev:::-:9:--::-2 .'.'.'·:;.; led_ 1: :1 t· +1 .• ·..,(:'\ __, d~-~e·t"'.l;...i(;':".\-1, to 1·ust·1ty ti'.,-:.• '"e''P.r'"a' of the ,.·,:-:--·• ...., J , ·1 "-" ...... ; ·1;1 • ~ , _, ..•:::~, -:~r:-••·1·'·c:. • V .., I ... ..., 1 ... I• • • 4 ,-, • - • I , - - I . . . . . • • • • • \ : ' . • "!'· r.:.nce· J,he .•_I.of TShf, 6" C,,.,""'OLl~t . 000/= g V nu1"'e ,..JI 000 ·- -:,.le -- ~·-=- ..J .. ,,.... -.-i....,:: 1 h \.J II ••·•' 11 .. t., J t .~I_. 0 \' ·- ~f'""••~!JJ._.•.J p:aintiff. For i'r.c:it re·ason he iilsi:;ted that this issue h_-::3 '.::-as;~ ~rove~!. i.9 • • rt < ulf 1 .. · .... • . ' C t..l ~ . Vvith regard to the 6th issue; '- 1hethe-r the plaintiff befcr,~ ~~j~ fnciden: • 1 IC:: had obtained credit of TShs. 30,000~000/= from r1c.~·~:1 Bugozi Musuguri, the learned counsel argued that similari~,, :: w~s pr')yec. Relying on t.ha evidence of PW2 and PW3, he argued ·:-~.at bc·~h witnesses confirmed that the said amount was lent to the .plaintiff by PW2 and evidence to that effect was tendered through exhibit P2. He thus argued that there was ample evidenc'3 to ~rove tha , ·· , · , · . • II · , , • ,._WI\ ..., ,-)1 It· , (,. istue hence in!=isted that the sa!"ne had been prove(:'. ' ' cr:titled, the learned couns.e! contended tha·~ tne r:-;air.-'·: :: !1 ~v:·:~- : proved his case, was entitled to all the r~liefs itemized. in ·:·:-.e r'.)la!r.i. . ' ' . ' ) ' ' " ' '' ' ' •· Expounding on the special damages of TS~s 49,J00,000/=, he . crgued that it ':rtas proved and t:,e· defendant did ::~ct c.:unte;- :L. On tr.ie r..;r~,.··~.mt of TShs 30,000,000/= sought, he. :irGued . . t:1at the . ' clai1r · · -~ pro'.'ed through ?.'A'2 and PW3' s evidence. Gr ·::-,e oth9r ·, claims, Mr. C'.1a:-nbiri .argued ·::1·ot.~hey were pro·,sc1 b-sc.:-use ·;:,e defendant f:;Jiled to countar all t:-,_e J:lai:ltiff'~ clcir_-,s ref;~rdlng its unethical behcvior, the wa~·-i~. de:11-t '"'ith plaintif·~'~ ·-r.or.e::, ~:~a ~c-:· of setting the criminal machinBry in ;-notion coupler:··,+~:-: ·'.·'ie C: :::·;· ':)'!" subjec·~ing the ~lointiff into .:-nentol torture c~·c' .~t·sss,: :-:o t',-:-:.-~ . grgued that ~he amounts cl~1'.l'led 'Nere justi~lec:I granted. -~J.· ~~g0Jbi_;:;:_<:~:, clud~~- hi~_,•:;~ :-:>i:.~:on by_,ur~::-~~ ·':-:?~-~~ ·._·:-:· _t; 0 I ~=:-~ - ._-~ - that on the balance, the p'.•::int:ff'!=. ccse wa: :12-:-1·:i3:- ·;·:1~t ?--:e defendant's defence as the blcr.;ec act was .osi-~,:-~r-.--::"' j . 1 ~·., . c:1e Herieth Tumsifu Sawe who 'NOS the defer.dant's ·2.".:'".;~' 1:--~·,:~-a r,ence 2') l ,: the employer: is responsible for her acts. He argueC.: fL•:·ther ·:·:1at since the plaintiff was rot criminally prosecuted, it :-nsa:~~t he was j. - tefling tne -truth -about- 'vvhat happened;- He thv-3 -prayed. for judgment to be entered in favour of the plaintiff. On his part, /\Ar. Kambo, learned counsel began by ralsirg_ an issua which he suggested ·should be resolved by the -::our~- first '",'iJ.~ regard to the locus standi of the plaintiff to institute the present suH against the defendant. He styled the issue as; ,...,hf-~'-~~~-'!' ,:\,~G~~'.'.t~•"" \Nesat~::1 Gidcmard has- locui s·~a~,di ·to sue in +fl~ ~~:~-~ !".'.'.P ~'.J_~ld~r:, · ?aints & GeneroJ Enterpri~es. The learned coun:el contendad strongly-that from the defen~e evidence, particulc:-!y thct o·~ D\\/2 together with the contents of exhibit D 1 and D2, it_ ,,. ·.::1s mac'.3 · apparent thot the names of the proprietors of 8L :lce:-s Paints & 1 General ':nten:xises were lsaKa Gidamara and Ko::-ula 1\·Jgusti;io ' . Kabula. in that regard, he argued th'Jt factuc:ly B1/!:der~ ~ai:1t~ .'3t General Enterprises being a r.iere business ncme h-:::,j no le;:ct_ , capacity to iue or be sued. He argued thus ~:1a·;· ~-.,:·:·s :; ::;inct '.:::,e preferred against or by the business name alor,:-5 'Nl·'.·:-.out t:19 names of the persons who are partners or propr:s·~-:-.; ..,Th~ lecrriled counsel elabor::ted that rro1~ the,::o.,tents of c;::1;;:;:::,r_--;":. · ;-·>~:;t1 ,vc:'4 -admitted--· u:1~:1c!lenged, ._ tr.e _p:-,oprieto!':; of '3 1f/.'s:·.: • -•- - ..... - • -~ •• •~ - - 7 s-ln·::.; - s~ - • h • - ~ ------- General Enterpri:;es were ~o Gidi:::-nar-:l and ::c·:~ ·.::r: .\•_ gu~~-:t"c ltc 1 1 Kabula and the~e wer.e. th9 on~y people ,_.vi ;·:7 lc-:·J:; .. ~or.c'i · ·:·8 inrtitute a su1~ describing therr.selves as trcding as Pl!:ild9tf Paints 8, General En~er~rises. ·He ·elaborated further tha·i· r;e nome · o.c 21 " t) ) feature anywhere in exhibit D2 as a proprietor of euik::ler.; Painb & I •- • General Enterp:-ises. The learned counsel argued furthe-r that throughout lhe -p!aintiff's- - - ---·- -- - case there was no mention of either lsaka Gidam~ra or Kabula Augustine Kabula who are the registered proprie·~ors of Builders Paints & General Enterprises. He crgued further that no reason ·...vcs given why Augustine Wesaka Gidamara sued th8 dsfendant vvh!le he was not one of the proprietors of Builders Pc:'.;-,~s .;;_ Ge;ne~.::1 ! .· Enterprises. Tha learned cour,sel conduded his sut}miss:on on -r:1,'.:} issue insisting that by the p:-lnciple of locus stanC:i, it is on:y the registered proprietors of Builders Paints & General !:~.terr: .i:;es wr.c - could legitimately file a suit against the defendc'1t. 1-:G argued fudher -that '.::>ased on the records obtaining ir, ~'.1e o·rnces of B•Jslness. Regi~~ration and Licensing Agency (BR::L.A.~ ·:·~g ;~gistere~ I proprietors of Builders Points & General Enterprises . ar.e · l:;ckci .· . . Gidamara and Kabula Augustine Kabula. In thct ;-39Grc' . :-; i:; en!~' - those two peG;:>le .whose specimen. sigr.ature~. ·cp;:-_:;3c:-~ ;n e;,hibit D4 who have sufficient interest and who are capo~-!~ of ,;ns1:~L•f:--:g a suit in a ccurt of lav-.1 de:;ctibing ·;·hen1selv0:- ~- ·:·'.'.":1:-'.::-~ in ·;·'-.-:~ i1ame of Builders Paints & Gt3:.ercl c11terp:-ise·3. :-'.3 ·"-:_·;; \7:·-::,1ed ;~y the suit to be -::lismissed for v-.'.:-n-t cf locus stancii. ---~---~-- respondeC: c:; ~cll0ws;cnfne·-pq5sue:\,.~hether·-~-:r~-~=:·!1--~tf-'::-,~{~-:;;i::!:·=--- 2C07, the ,,\•o~n~iff depo:;;t.e~ 1·:1e lurn of T~~·?1"";-;:iic sh~mngs - -· . I 60,000,000/= inio account No 2033500023, he conter:-:lsd fcrcefolly that it was not proved. He argued thaT P\A/1 aid- n.')7 ~e:.<:-;e:-· :o:.y- - 22 II ( j document to substantiate the alleged deposit of TShs 60,000,000_/= in account No 2033500023 on 17/9/2007. He elc:>-J:-ate : 1 :·re·:· +he claim oy- PY.tl that -the -deposit -slips were .at _tbe _Ceotr;ii J~olice Stotion was lame as no piece of evidence was advanced to account for the reasons why the same could not ::-e obtained ·:·c be used in court. The learned counsel contended strongly th.::t_ since the deposit slips for TShs 60~000,000/= were pivot~: to the i:!aintiff's suit h9nce he was expected to bring the·:-i1 cs proof that he indeed m~de the deposi~s otherwise the claim -~:--;::ii J.>s/ ,_. 'e'"€. token by the qolice was under the circumstance: :: ::-H~rs a;(cu.:s. He insisted that from DWl and D'.A/2's evidence, it was 1:lear that those deposits did not exist rather what happer.ed vvas n1ere onli'1e transfer made by one of the defendant':- star-=; In thct regard, the !earned counsel maintained that vvith-:--'Jt the deposl1 slips, the clcim of deposit of TShs 60,000,000/= in account No 2033500023 cannot be entertcined. Mr. Kambo argued further that since PVvl, AL'[''.'S'::~c ·-,A_tesc:(o Gidamara v.'as -not a prcprie7or of Builders Pc:i:-y;·:; n,. Ge,,erc 1 Enterprises, h;s evidence regc:-diP2 the deposit slips :_-: '")"{ :~:-'J v~IU•?. On a differert note, Mr. Kar.1bo cha,ged. that s::ics :;'_\': ·.·.·c:s•:-:>'):l' :i -- - -proprietor of 2uilders. F:.ai11ts~_General Enterpri39:; :,:-,_·{ r:·;-::;::-ott~ ·:c .- - - - -- - ~ - ------ --- -- ~- --- -- - ~ave made ·:·he online de;c '.)Sits either as lsckc -. 2k:.~n1ara or ------K'.'..G-19H~e-A-uf}L~s.11no~Kab_uJo wh0 did not testify in co\·:--:-, s1;c:1 fc:::t'-1::1 . situation raises questions \Vi':°h regard to the IC.'t;dn3.~.; of :;:1.e- ol!eged deposit~ made by c :;trc:1ger to the a.::cc ,;;-,·;·. :" 1 -~- ir_.2is"l:s·d ~- that-from-th~ eviEience- adduced by_ the plcLntif'L ~~ :~ _s~Seit ~,:1~·;· there was r:o deposit of TShs 60,000,000/= evet · -::epjsited ;i' 23 -, v account No 2033500023. He thus concluded tha·;· t:-:a -..st is:;u& is answered in the negative that no money was ,,depc-sited in account No BS 2033500023 on 17/9/2007. \~ith regard to the 2nd issue; whether the saic', Tani:an::ci shili~~g~ 60,000,000/= ,vas fraudulentiy credited in1o plair.ti~~ Ac-::cunt Mc 2033500023, Mr. · Kambo 's position was that sincn it has b~en established that Augustine Wesaka Gidamara did rot deposit the scid amount, the unans'."lered issue is who did it ir. .'.!!'9'•: :)f exh;'.-:lt P 1• .-:-i....e ler-rn -'d. counsel a·. rg·"-·ed . . +h,.....L '- I from. exh"1bi~ I. ·1 ..,,;~ r-! • • • •-:- ·,•· , :J. - '-' ar .-.,",... . . · 0 • : .I --:', '":-'. I~ • -· I the said amount was deposited '"lhich raises questions of. '-A/ho actually deposited the. amount and whether. the dG;..;,osH ·v.10s ge!1uine. He f:1sisted that the evidence of DWl a:iC: D'/1'2 sho\A_10:j clearly that ·:he deposited amounts in account t--lo. 2C:J3500023 ,vas dcne f~c:L·c'.L•!ently by one_ He~ietr. Tumsifu Sav-.'3 -'·:1~~1.:gh or.I:~".) transfer and -;·!le money wc-s debited fror.1 goverhr.-:er.-t. ·-:·:cour.t'.j. . I • . He thus insiste-:J ::1at the issue k onsv:vered in . tha af~:-;-:,c-:·i•. '.,:. , . . \Vith regard _-;·o the 3rd issue; whether the defe~r"~,:-::~· !, '": mp!o:,e~ 1 1 divided lump sum of Tanzania Shm~ngs 60,000,0i":IO/~ ,~·rk, thiee 1 n·""t,..llments 1 J ,-..;:;- • .;;""',., .-,J .. ·depos·1te_,. the 1"""' \-) . 5.--.i"".'e w .•·• ~,,..~.,,:.:~✓i:~,- J·nto ..,, ..... 'e-,.-,.._~·~,... v~"-•··•-·v :111· t•, .) . :: ._,l. ••• ·'..~:i:n1_?ut p!i.o.r consent and .C'~ .ou~·he:rizati~n fr1'm ?·'~~ p~:,f.r:tm, ,\,1,;- • . Kc:mbo argu9d that in viev 1 c·( ~he ansv-1er i:1 ;c-,t 1\3. "\0 1 .tc '!'hCJ ef-:ect that ~~1e:~e. was no i77oney de-;)osi~e-:1· ;;- -:-: ~':' ::Jn-~ N·:- 2033500023, the 3rd issue bc:<:.on1es re dune>:;:-/ ,:~::--~ ~ ::1s" no--'--- relevancy. .i· .• , ' c... ·•. learned counsel argued that it is apparent fron1 exhi~·it D 1 th~t before 17/9/2007, the pla;;iti:c's occount had z3r© •r1l~'..t::-1·3· w.likawt~e . ofter the. revers'!:J of the Ts\::;· 60,000,000/= the aaob Ls_,.~·.... :·~!~.~~in·e~'.-. \¥ith zero balance, there was thus no money ·;·c ope:-c:te .. He disputed the claim that plaintiff was diso[le,,1yed ·:·o Oj:)arate his cccount arguing that it is the plaintiff hirr.self \vr.o. :-:'.·:.::,i:_ec'. pu7tii1g cny money in his account. lri that regard he insistec.-··'.·ha~ the iss·~•e r, I . , i~ answered ir. the negative. Vvith regard to the 5th issue; whether the. plaintifi betc~e the inck!en~ ~1,:;d obtcfned credit of Tshs. 30,00_0.,000/= 1-~~ [>~c~"'!t":. Bvgcz:~ rvius'Jgvri, ti1e _learned counsel argued that it i:; opp~:;-3~-~ ·i·r:'.::·i· exhibit P2 is signed only by Au~ustino Wesaka GiC:a:-nc .. :: -:!nd t~e_ cdvocate together with the lender of the mor.e~· :•: :'. :-,:-~ zif·r. -~:--.? c.Ged. Furtl1er Augustine We.:;cka Gidamara who ~:;.:ne~ /:~:J_·:e~c: is not a proprietor' of Builders Paints & General E~.L~;·:::- rir2,s .. !:'"' 7:-,-::t. regard he argued that, all cc;i:;idered, that co~::'. :-,:; .. :·! ;-:-ee~ ::::- personal arrc:igement whic:1 has_ r.o rslevanC'/ ::·0 f!1~. case c;· hc.-nd. At any ;·ate, -:1e argue-:'. 1hat since exhibit P~ ,_, ·:-~:: si~'.'.190 0:-1!y, · I:JJv on=_, per·'·•"·· •.• _ , ,·1' .· does n,....t c· --_ "."'ls1·:-•., "...J -•...J.,-i-_e a cred·1t r'--~...., .. - ~ · · ~ ◊ ... -· ·--- ·~•J :.-. ._. • -· ..--i,_~ ·'·',:::. ···-''·"' •. ..., signature· cf the lender. He crg•.Jed thus, th-::~· ~'.-· ·. · ir:•.·~ 0f _·'\-~ e~:istence of r: loan betw€B': tr.; otop:-ieto .. .. c: ~-- ·:i.~ ..-~ _-=:_c:i;-:·:· ?,.. . .. . . V\lesaka Gid-:.imc"a -1 ., was no·J.I :1 · ,o-cv- -•eJ.o I, ,~.I , r of B·'-..,i•· .."..... •,~-,.. . :-~.:.-~l-..•'.'s ::-.;J .~ _:.1,::.. t\ :..X Gen °""'1 E11J·1:. ··p,...;-c:: ~-s p1a·1n1··1ff h--id - ·'"' locus stan,..•·. t ....._-~~• =-- .-.,,. -=.- .:-... ;:;~,; .,.•. · G~....A \ V 1 . J 1 ...._~./_ ··- ·.••-' ._ .. ,-.I-• .. • ; . , . . . . . . .., .....~ . I ' ' I _, .,,, · : ·· ····. \ · ' Ult' fl It: I A suP and therefore he is not entitled to' any . re!:s·~. : 11 F~':) • l I !ec;-ned. . counsel argusd further t~at ever. if pl~intiff had. le~~;,: s-rc:--:·di to _f:;;e .: . \.. _______ _j_be _pre_s_ent~ult. he deserved no relief because +he 7::tid T~:•. -· - - --- - - --- ~--~ ----~--- -------~---- --~•--· .. ~-- 60~000,000/= did not belong to hi~ and that before the 17/9/2007, the account of Builders Painters & General Enterprises had zero balance which proves that the plaintiff had no credible bu:;iness because under normal circumstances he could not operate business 'Nith zero balance. Further the learned CQ:'.1hse1 charged ·j·!iot pla:ntiff jid not tender any document to d_2-r:1~r.:;~r-::tte ti-.s - . n~'i'ure of the business he u~ed to ccrry out ai1d if ~•Jf3~ec. c::,y .. t._s loss. Consequently, he argued that the fate of thi~ suit is dismh~·~l ard prayed for it to be dismissed with costs. · it is now my ·~urn to determine the fate of this suiL Du3 ·:·-:• the· fc:c ~ ·\~c+ the issue of locus standi is a ;-1atter o-r- mixture r·; :::i\v ::.nd 'fc-:\ , ! do propose to start..with the sam9 because lf ln-::e-~:'. t:~. '=) pbir.·:·:f; . had no locus standi to institute the present suit, this iss:..1e al'oh0 · could determine conclusively the fate of t~is suii. !t is c:1 established principle of law that a right to be r.e:;rd ts~ore the court of lcv1 is lir.1ited to those who show suffk::ier·~ ir,te:·-:=:st ir. the. suit. The rule of locus stanC:.i is defined by the r:c~.··~ . . !r:1':~ Lr::::v1s o-i- --- - -- If - · ______-,..._En'gfaJJP, __4th e_dilion, 12arq 4:9 di' 9age-s2 to mec.r.: --- - - - - - ---- --------- - - - - - - -------- - - - -· ~~--~--------------~~ "Locus s~andi is gover!:sd by the common lei,·/. A-::r.,-_,~::Ji. . . :;· ~o ___ _ .. ___ . -~~thG1-t~l<~v-~,-ir1""'ord.eLto~-rna:o.1r..l1_t_proceecJ.{c.g./ ::;:, .•-:s.•:, .':~tu;Jy, _ c · -----~ ~-------~· - - - - - p/alnHff.c;.an.applican1 .'":.lust show not or-:y '/'h,·::.'. t, ";?_.:01.rt >as· 1 power tc determine the fss1Je but a/Go +h,:,'i' ·? -::.. r~ ~ ~;1-:::r=c: 't ,.._, bring the matter before the court" .... (. The rule was discussed and '=xpounded further in J.:,e ccss ::-~ [Y'X Narayana Reddy V State of Kamataka Air (1 ~CJJ [(AM 99, Hl6 (reported in Digest on Civil Case Law & Procedure by Odungc, G.V.); the court said: "Locus standi signifies a right to be heard. A person musf have sufficiency of interest to sustain his standing to sue in a court of law." :=re:-rn tbe pla:nt it· is discerr:able that the narr.e ':'.:- lr.e ':'la:r·i·if :·~. · ~itec!- · as Augu.5tino Wesaka . Gidar.1ara t/a B•. •i:~-e;-s f':::•~·i·s r.~ · Genercl Ente~~r:ses. I wish to pose a bit here and.-~:i'."' ~~- ..:·. I no·:·zd f'"om .the counsel submissio:i tho-;· Mr. .Chambiri, l9arned. cc·J:i~-s·, . '~ . attempted to introduce an alias for the plaintiff: ~Mith __r~si:s·c-i· t'.) the learned counsel, my close reading of the plec9ings ail~ ~-L~s ~ - proceec:'1g·s ·.7 · general doe:; no,t sugg~st that the r-lC:i'."",·:·:·_:.~, ~ :"c:r:-? ... hes had any alias at any t-ime sir.ce · the filing o:- i'h& scE· .. r,2 introduction of an alias iri .~ubmlssion is a ·mi~concepti-:n and c'. .. distortion of facts. Suffice it to soy that matters of eYlc.!en(:e such as the plaintiff's names cannot !:>e amended_ through submission; they ought tc- :1ave been d~:ie t:ircugh prodi,.·ct::::-. ::::< ·svidrs~ce. The Court o:- · Aor.:>eal in ·it:1e case of TL~ico ,:::-': t-·· :':.,~,~:r:; <~et:~~~t • I • J • • - - --- - - ... "It is no~~-' s'attled that c sut>rn!s~ion-:is~a-svrr:mc::--,·:7J~--=-;-__-::,·r_,•r-:- :J,-;,·.~-. It is rcr evidence and cannot be u~sc.' ~o :..:t.-cduc? ev,'dence ... II -,- _, . • ,I Mr. Kambo argued strongly that from the conten:3 0f s'. ~hi'.:)Jt D2, the extract from Business Registration and Li.c':3"1!:ing Ager.C'' {BRELA) the proprietors of Builders Paints & Generc: ~r.ter'.')rises ere l~aka Gidamara and Kabula Augustine Kabula vvho for undisclosed reasons have not been made · part of the· suit nor celled to tes·i'ify. Having given due scrutiny to· t:,e totaEty cf ·j·l1e plaintiff's case, it is glaring that while the suit has been preferreC: i:, . _ I 6 ./H• .· I 1 , · f. •f the name of Augustine Wesaka Gidamara t/a Builders. Paints 2~ General Enterprlses, the disputad account J\l.o 20335COC2: ii1 which . . ~'he money -'Nas deposited \Nas operated in the r.,::~.e o{ 2u\!s:er!: ?cints & ·Gen'-3ral Enterprises 'Vith ?niy tw'.) pror.;~iet::i:·.: C'.: 1~1ov,':~ L--- e)~hibit 02. For that reason from the definition cf loc'lvs_ ·stancli highl:ghted herein above, the plaintiff Augusfr.o \"-Jsso!ca · Gidamara is a complete stranger ·j·o the account :':,ecc:_1se r.e Is not one of the proprietors; i.~. lsaka Gidamc,a c:· l(c::,u1a ·• . Augustine Kabu.la. Augus.tino W...escko Gidamara, the plai~'i'iff in ·rhis s0it is t:-ierefo:-e foreign to the two proprietors and ·:·r.:-oug:.out the trial he did n~{ exhibit suffici~r.t in~erest o:- cuthor:t, · to in:-·iitute t::is ~uit. PvV2 and· PVv3, the V\'i+.nesses · he celled to !:u:.: ~o:--·· ·-~is casa were catego:-ical in their evidences that th'3/ :··:l/ :~:1av1 the plcinHH. by ths·. :1cr.1e of AuQ Jstin:) Gidcrr,-:ira or:::' 1 :·< ·:· ·.--.<:c c.- ::;~~' ot:1er name. :=or that reasori I hcv~ ::o reasori ;~c;· ·:·•: '.:"-7<:7r ;·'.1~·:· i~•.s c=.,,:rrent plaintiff is not the p,.-:)p:-ietor of Builde~.~ ?.-:::·~·:-t [,. ~-s;- 0·:.; 1. E:1-terpri:ies c0t rather. an '.:-n::,s:i.Lor. Fer ·:,-,ar :··~:-:'.::-: ·•:_ dc;::;~,---=---- Augustino Wesaka Gidomcra. wh9 Hied this suit lac:::; ?:e re-=tL:L::i·:·e s·i·cndi conseqJent!y this SL it fa:ls on that basis. 1 )C .J • II M:-. Kambo, :nsisted in his submission that even if th9 p!-: !nti-ff hcd 1 locus standi ~o file this suit, still the same 'Nou!c'. hci'.'e failed because, the plaintiff did not deposit any money i:1 acsount No 2033500023 as :1e alleges as no proof of .C.:e:- ':)3it :;•:::,s. _were produced. have gone through the plainHrf' s 3vldence thoroughly, I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel that indeed plaintiff vvho wants the court to believe t:1c;·_._he ·c1eposite~ . ' -t·he mone~, _dic. _:--iot tender <:ny d?p_0sit slip. l:1:-tec:-j ~(.~h~t h9 o:c' V\'as to rely o.i. -:-nere words th~:t tbe ·!:'ame were-~·ck'9'1 1:-, .- ·:···· 9 ~ol:-:9. ' • • ... •.... H • v-i:1en he go-:- ar-::ested and ~';,-Orched. My und~rs·~:J:-~=ir:~ :'f \-'!r. -:--.~ he told the court was that the documents \Vere · seiz:c·:J by the police and therefore they were/are· within the police cus>)dy. \M)th .res9ect to the plaintiff, that alone would not prove the --~xistence of those pay in slips unless there 'NOS proof that he c::,pEe-d fer their return and th9 police declined ·~o return them. In the ci~:-sence ·c'f any &videnc e showing the~ ~'hos'9 slips '"'ere i;-:1;:::- -:·Lmc?.:: by ·i't:e · police ·and e~for~s have been er.iployed unsucce::s·~~l!y ·'·e> sect;:-e their return, it will be difficu!t to say the~, existec. l:i ·:·h::··:· :-espec·:· there is nothir:g to held on to say the~_,.existed. Ac-:0;·dn2 +::, ;:)V", those. slips· v-:ere missing.· fror- -f~e dat0 of trc:1.-- --:·:::·:·~:- :-. · ::i_<::::~;· credence to 1re defenc0'!; version. It was t~e ~1 ··;· ,- : / -·-- ======an1ount=cor;1r~dedng the· ~esis~a:ice oy the defer.c-?. ·;-'v:::·:· ·th·? st::c'. :· mcney wcs f:-G!_Jdule0t 1y -~~~r::~errsd online G;.:'. ·:·-;a:·.:· .u:'G:S :'.": :'.' actual physk::a~ deposits. It i~ tri'I e. law thct he :r'.-. ~- .· c 1.'.? _:; 9s rr1us·~ · prove (section 110( 1) of the ..Evidence Act). Ir. the;~· :·?.G:~:-·:! :-:n ::e PW 1 alleges that he deposited the :-noney a~-:! ,_,._;-:;-: :r]'.''9d wi'i'.1 ; / - V' . . deposit slips, he had a duty of producing them i:r :::>ur·; 'i'ailure :-Jf .. \ . which the balance tilts to the defence's version thct t:1e::~ v 1cs no ceposits done at Mwenge branch rather what hc~r;ene:I is ,-vhat ,.· 'NOS explained by DWl of one Herieth Tumsifu Sa·Ne playing 'Nith the computers and making . online transfers to .the _plaintiff's account at llala. I am thus sc1"i:ified that in the ab~e'.1ce o.-,= dspcsi~ slips, the 1st issue is answered in ~he negative ·rha"i" o:: ~ 7/9/2007~ · there was no physical depo~lt. of Tshs 60,000,000/:= "'!:-JS c: ed.ited it•1 0 Account No 2033500023 by the· plaintiff. In view of the finding in is~ue No 1 above, th-9 r.:::nsVi 1er to t'.1? second issue will be in the positive because if there 'NO$ ~o prco·:= · of physical deposit of the said money which could only oe done by t:1e ~roduc~·ion of the pay in slips. In the. absei"lce _cf -;-:-.o:;e ~!:9~ '·\':---ich accorc.:r.g to the defence ,vere discovere:' '.""lis::::--1 er ·i·:,e . e'/enlng of tr.e same day, .what col.'ld be infe:red i~ ·~he~ ·,vl-,oever did the online transfer did so fraudulently. Fro~ :::;·. >,_.'] a;-,d DW2's ~estimonies it codd be glea'.'le-:l that the said r,,~;1)'?!' :-. :ic: ::'ee11 vvithdrawn from different government accounts and after lhe 1 discovery of the fraudulent transfei's; the same 'Nere ~G\'€i':-e.:-: ::-c~i--: to these respective accounts. In ~hat respect t:-.~ '.:'.:'Ci"::~ die! no·~ be:iefit f::om ·:·'.ie ~aid money. Wi'th regard to issues Nos. 3 to 6, I see no reason o·~ ,-ji:c 1_•.::,'.i::;J ~'h3m because in vi9w of my findings in issue No 1 and 2, ·:·he. :::1swer3 tc these issues will be of no corsequence. As there ,_,.-1:;:e ;~-:) mone~,. t . 30 .r reasons; first!~,; plaintiff being a complete stranger had ~o !ocu~ ( stondi to file the same, secondhr; plaintiff. failed ::or'.'.",pl-ately -~o . I• prove the clcim that he deposited the crilc'.. mt of Tshs. ~~0~000,000/= lri Account No 2033500023- at NM·B fv1,,_1ye;,£ie Br-:inc~ . . . on 17/9/2007. Before concluding this judgment, I wish to comr:1ent briefly on exhibit P2, the Acknowledgment of Debt, reliec u;::0:1 b'/. th9 . . . plaintiff cs prcof of borrowing mcr.e~, fro~ PW2. '"-':-::~:) I c-~r?.e ·,-_:j-:-r. Mr. Kambo that it had no relevancy ,whatsoever ~c th9 cc:::se :)t .· _ hand, it had another serious flaw in that it ha:l r.-:· :;t~:~,p· dt.:~~' · c,_rnxed to it. l:1 .that regard, it offended the p;-o,_'i:lci1s c;- secti'::'.-,_ 47( 1 ) of the S·i·amp Duty Ac\ Ccp 189 RE 2002 :~.sn~e :-:··is c·~.;~c evidential vd0e. ConseqL antly, this suit is devoid of any merit anC: :~- is cc-::-:rc'hglv. ·; di~mi~sed in'i"~s entirety with coJt3. It is so ordered. ~u~~t ~ C/1 ~1. /2C~17 Judg,nent d~!ivered in cr.:::~.,bsrs Y f!--,e prss f' ;, ::,i j'•,s ' ·:-, rL·~buka ViricG:"i", learned co~,~~: fo~ '.he Pl?i~·r:·<:r ~}_, ·_·: :"·~:--j!"L::~.1:::·:J Drnbu; iecrn s,:;'. co·Jnsel to~ ;~ (Jere ndant, '.his ; C, '2-:' 1, M J [' ·11 ' '. 1-1.. ·.::: ,'.v . .-.:-.1 · ., . ·... .\ -,-:. . _Judg~ \ · _ 10/1 · 20·17