bank of india t ltd vs tropical foods ltd another 2022 tzhccomd 1 10 january 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA COMERCIAL DIVISION AT DAR ES SALAAM COMMERCIAL CASE NO. 93 OF 2021 BANK OF INDIA (TANZANIA) LIMITED...................... PLAINTIFF VERSUS TROPICAL FOODS LIMITED...................................... 1st DEFENDANT AL NASIR MOHAMMAD SOMJI................................. 2nd DEFENDANT JUDGEMENT K. T. R Mteule, J 6/10/2021 & 10/1/2022 The Plaintiff filed this suit claiming from the Defendants jointly and severally a payment of USD 658,841.55 (United States Dollars Six Hundred Fifty-Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Forty-One Fifty-Five Cents) being the total outstanding loan comprised of the principal amount, interest and penal interests as of 01st December 2019 and still accruing to the date of payment in full. The plaintiff further claims for the costs of the suit and any other reliefs that the honourable court may deem fit to grant. The undisputed facts of this case are as follows. The plaintiff and the 1st Defendant engaged in financial deal where on 15th July 2015, the 1st Defendant obtained from the Plaintiff a Demand Loan Facility of USD 1,200,000.00 and a Term Loan Facility of USD 1,100,000.00. The 2nd Defendant guaranteed the repayment of the facilities. Linder the terms and conditions of the said credit facilities the Demand Loan and Term Loan facilities were payable at the rate of 0.50% over BPLR of 7.0% per annum. i Subsequent to the aforesaid facilities, further transactions appear to have taken place to secure the facilities including; • A debenture issued by the 1st Defendant with an aggregated amount of USD 2,300,000.00, which was registered to cover USD 2,875,000.00 plus interest and other charges thereon; • A mortgage dated 16lh July 2015 over a property comprised in Certificate of Title Number 19932, Mot No. 12, Land Office No, 28930, Vingunguti Industrial Area, Dares Salaam City in the name of the 1st Defendant to sucure a sum of USD 2,300,000,00, which was registered to cover USD 2,875,000.00; and • A Personal Guarantee and Indemnity executed by the 2nd Defendant on 16 July 2015 guaranteeing the payment of the credit facilities. Sometimes in July 2016 upon the 1st Defendant's request, some adjustments were effected to the facilities. The repayment schedule for Demand Loan of USD 1,2000,000 was adjusted from 24 months to 33 months and instalment amount reduced from USD 54,000.00 to USD 40,360.00. Repayment schedule for a Term Loan of USD 1,100,000.00 was adjusted to 18 equated Quarterly Instalment (EQI) of USD 72,570 each commencing from January 17, moratorium 16 months, door to door tenor of 70 months and interest to be serviced during the moratorium period and instalment to be due for payment on the last day of the month. In the Plaint, the Plaintiffs is alleging that the 1st Defendant repaid some of the loan amounts and failed to pay an outstanding amount of USD 658,841.55 comprised of the principal amount, interest and penal interest as of 01s1 December 2019 which led to categorization of the loan as a non­ performing loan in accordance with Bank of Tanzania Regulations. This suit is therefore intending to recover the alleged unpaid sum. 2 [4 ! In the joint Written Statement of Defence, the Defendants disputed owing the alleged amount to the Plaintiff and if at there is outstanding money, it should be owed by Sun Machineries Limited arising from her illegal arrangement with the Plaintiff. The Defendants claim that the Demand Loan Facility was fully paid while a portion of the debt under the Term Loan Facility has already been discharged. The Defendant accused the Plaintiff claiming illegal engagement between the Plaintiff and Sun Machineries Limited which prejudiced the Defendants. According to the 2nd Defendant, this arrangement between the Plaintiff and Sun Machinery Limited discharged him from the obligation under the guarantee for the unpaid facility. The defendants disputed to be bound by the debenture basing on the grounds that the sum of USD 2,300,000 secured therein was never received by the 1st Defendant. The Defendants further claim to have been discharged from the mortgage deed because they no longer owe any money to the plaintiff. From the parties' pleadings, the following were framed as disputed issues for determination in this case: 1. Whether the 1st Defendant entered Finance Facility Contract of USD 2,300,000 with the Plaintiff. If yes, what were the terms and conditions. 2. If the first issue is answered in the affirmative, whether there is a breach of the terms and conditions of the finance facility contract by either party 3 3. Whether the Second Defendant guaranteed obligation of the 1st Defendant in respect of the repayment of the Loan and to What extent 4. To what relief are the parties entitled to. In determining the above issues, hearing proceeded, the plaintiff being represented Dr. Abdul G. Kitururu Advocate from Amicus Attorneys while the Defendants were represented by Faith Kiwanga and Asella K. Arcard Advocates from A & F Attorneys Upon hearing of the plaintiff's case, the only witness PW1, one Robert Afumusye Kibona who identified himself as the Plaintiff's General Manager - Business Operation testified in the witness statement filed as per the Rule 50 (2) of the High Court (Commercial Division) Procedure Rules, GN No. 250 of 2012 as amended by GN No 107 of 2019 (the Rules). In his Witness statement, PW1 narrated what is in the Plaint with regards to the Demand Loan Facility of USD 1,200,000.00 and the Term Loan Facility of USD 1,100,000.00 issued by the Plaintiff to the 1st Defendant and guaranteed by the 2nd Defendant, whereby both the Demand Loan and the Term Loan were payable at the rate of 0.50% over BPLR of 7.0% per annum with monthly rests making the actual effective rate to be 7.50% per annum. Upon oral evidence PW1 tendered as exhibit a Sanction Letter of credit dated 15/7/2015 with reference number BOITL: ZNK: CRVMP/19 Annexure BOI - 1 in the Plaint which was admitted by the Court and marked as Exhibit Pl. He further testified on the Debenture issued by the 1st Defendant on 16lh July 2015 creating the first ranking fixed charge and first ranking floating charge in favour of the Plaintiff to secure financial facilities advanced to the 1st Defendant aggregating to USD 2,300,000.00, which was registered to 4 cover USD 2,875,000.00 plus interest and other charges thereon. The Debenture Deed and the Certificate of Registration of a Charge were tendered and admitted by the Court as Exhibit P2 Collectively. PW1 re-explained what is in the plaint with regards to the legal mortgage over a property bearing Certificate of Title Number 19532, comprised in Plot No. 12, Land Office No. 28930, Vingunguti Industrial Area, Dares Salaam City in the name of the 1st Defendant to secure the sum aggregating to USD 2,300,000.00, which was registered to cover USD 2,875,000.00 in favour of the Plaintiff. PW1 was also aware of the personal guarantee and indemnity by the 2nd Defendant which assured repayment of the credit facilities. PW1 as well tendered as exhibit the Certificate of Registration of a charge and the mortgage of the right of occupancy in respect of Certificate of Title Number 19532, comprised in Plot No. 12, Land Office No. 28930, Vingunguti Industrial Area, Dares Salaam which were admitted and marked as Exhibit P3 collectively. The Personal Guarantee and Indemnity was as well tendered by PW1 and admitted as Exhibit P4. It is the testimony of PW1 that on 15th July 2016 the 1st Defendant requested for a revised repayment schedule for Demand Loan of USD 1,200,000 by adjusting the repayment period from 24 months to 33 months and reduction of instalment amount from USD 54,000.00 to USD 40,360.00 and a revised repayment schedule for a Term Loan of USD 1,100,000 to be repayable in 18 equated Quarterly Instalment (EQI) of USD 72,570 each commencing from January 17, moratorium 16 months, door to door tenor of 70 months, interest to be serviced during the moratorium period, instalment to be due for payment on the last day of the month. According to PW1, the Plaintiff through a Sanction Letter dated 20tn July 2016 granted the 1st Defendant's request and rescheduled the repayment of the credit facility as per the 1st Defendant request. The Request Letter from the Tropical Food Limited (1st Defendant) dated 15th July 2016 and the Sanction letter of credit facility dated 20th July 2016 granting the 1st Defendant's request were tendered by PW1 and admitted as Exhibit P5 and Exhibit P6 respectively. PW1 testified further that the 1st Defendant managed to repay some of the loan amounts leaving unpaid an outstanding amount of USD 658,841.55 comprising of the principal amount, interest and penal interest as of 1st December 2019 which caused the loan to be categorised as a non-performing loan and efforts to demand the amount from the 1st defendant was unsuccessful. The demand letters were admitted as exhibit P 8 and P9. Upon cross examination, it was revealed by PW1 that the purposes of the term loan was for warehousing business while the Demand loan was for corporate landing to Sun Machinery Limited for importing earth moving machinery. According to PW1 the loan was supposed to be paid by the 1st Defendant. One witness testified for the defence case. The witness, DW1 is one Al Nasir Mohamed Somji who identified himself as the 2nd Defendant and the guarantor as well as the principal officer and one of the directors of the 1st Defendant therefore conversant with the facts of the case. According to DW1, the 1st Defendant was incorporated on 19th May 1978 with its main objective being Food and beverage production which was closed down around early 2000's. Later the company approached the Plaintiff with the aim of obtaining a loan for establishment of warehouses for lease. DW1 stated that he participated as in charge of negotiation of the said loan facility which the Defendant secured from the Plaintiff as per the agreed terms and condition. DW1 admitted that on 15th July 2015 the 1st Defendant was advanced by the Plaintiff the demand loan facility amounting to USD 1,200,000.00 and the Term loan facility of USD 1,100,000.00. The plaintiff stated that the Term loan was for Construction of commercial building at plot no 12, at Vingunguti Industrial area, Dares salaam while the Demand Loan was for corporate purpose including lending to Sun Machineries Ltd for importing of earth moving machineries particularly suitable for construction purpose. (Exhibit Pl) It was stated by DW1 that the 1st Defendant among others disclosed to the bank that she was not doing any other business and that the payment of the loan was to be obtained from the lease of the warehouses that would be constructed by the term loan given to the 1st Defendant. In the cause of business, the according to DW1, the 1st defendant traded on loss where the rent per square meter fell from 12 USD in price to 3 USD which was a drop by more than a half of the original price and most of the tenants were out of business and the building was almost empty. DW1 stated that the Defendants informed the bank on this situation and the bank visited the premises for inspection. According to DW1 the 1st defendant's finances crumbled further when the first Defendant was re-assed by Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA) and required to pay TZS 146, 047,514.00 as a tax was a load to a crumbling business of the 1st Defendant. 7 It is further stated by DW1 that despite the entire business downfall the 1st Defendant has managed to remit to the bank a sum amounting to the principal amount and in numerous circumstances has pleaded with the bank to be allowed to pay USD 250,000.00 to offset the loan but the bank declined. DW1 questioned how the debt the Defendant owe to the Plaintiff amounted to USD 658,841.55 adding that the Defendants believe that the bank has recovered its capital and profits from the returns of the 1st Defendant. DW1 blamed the Plaintiff for not expeditiously taken care of setbacks and eventualities encountered by the 1st Defendant which were brought into the attention of the Bank in order to avoid the occurrence of any default. According to DW1 in consequence thereof, such state of affairs interfered with the good standing performance of the 1st Defendant. DW1 prayed for this Court to throw the baseless and unfounded claim of the plaintiff as well as consider the goodwill of the 1st and 2nd defendants in the transaction. On cross examination, DW1 agreed that the vide Exhibit P6 the Plaintiff agreed to reschedule the repayment of the facility but maintained that the Defendant repaid the loan instalments, and the deposits are with the Bank since all the payment records are kept by the Bank. When asked as to whether he complied with the rescheduled payment DW1 said he did not remember if the Defendant complied because it was long time ago, too long to remember. DW1 testified that he discharged his obligations under the guarantee although he later on Re examination denied to be the guarantor. After closure of Defence case, parties were allowed to file final written submissions. Both submissions were filed timely, and they will be taken into 8 account in addressing the issues framed. What follows now is the determination of the issues one after another. The first issue is "Whether The 1st Defendant entered into Finance Facility Contract of USD 2,300,000.00 with the Plaintiff, if yes, what were the terms and conditions thereof." The evidence of PW1 and exhibit Pl demonstrate that vide the sanction letter dated 15/7/2015 (Exhibit Pl) the plaintiff advanced to the Defendant two types of loans. The first one is Demand Loan amounting to USD 1,200,000 while the other one was for a Term loan amounting to USD 1,100,000. This piece of evidence is supported by the evidence of DW1 who acknowledged to have received the two loans with the amounts stated by PW1. Annexure I to Exhibit Pl totalised the two loan to make it USD 2,300,000. Therefore, it is correct to say that the total loan amount advanced to the 1st Defendant was USD 2,300,000.00 being the sum of the two facilities. This analysis is sufficient to answer the first part of issue that it is apparent in this factual analysis that, the issue as to whether the 1st Defendant entered into Finance Facility Contract of USD 2,300,000.00 with the Plaintiff is answered affirmatively. The second part is what were the terms of the Finance Facility Contract between the parties. According to Exhibit Pl, both the Demand Loan and the Term Loan were payable at the rate of 0.50% over Benchmark Prime Lending Rate (BPLR) of 7.0% per annum with monthly rests making, the actual effective rate to be 7.50% per annum. From Exhibit Pl, initially the Demand Loan of USD 1,200,000.00 was to be repaid in equated monthly instalments of USD 54,000.00 for 27 Months commencing after three months of the first date of disbursement while the Term Loan of USD 1,100,000.00 was to be repaid in an equated quarterly instalment of USD 9 66,125.00 for 60 months commencing after six months of the first date of disbursement. According to the evidence of PW1 as well as DW1, later in 2016, some adjustments were made to the terms of payment where the repayment period was adjusted from 24 months to 33 months and reduction of instalment amount from USD 54,000.00 to USD 40,360.00 and a revised repayment schedule for a Term Loan of USD 1,100,000 to be repayable in 18 equated Quarterly Instalment (EQI) of USD 72,570 each commencing from January 17, moratorium 16 months, door to door tenor of 70 months, interest to be serviced during the moratorium period, instalment to be due for payment on the last day of the month. Further to the aforesaid interest rate and repayment schedules, it is undisputed fact that the Loan facility was as well secured by the mortgage of a right of occupancy on Certificate of Title Number 19532, Plot No. 12, Land Office No. 28930, Vingunguti Industrial Area, Dares Salaam City in the name of the 1st Defendant (Exhibit P3 collectively), a Debenture creating the first ranking fixed and floating charge on the assets of the 1st Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff (Exhibit P2 Collectively) and a Personal Guarantee and Indemnity issued by the 2nd Defendant dated 16th July 2015 (Exhibit P4). From the foregoing narration, one can conclude that the terms and conditions of the loan facility were guided by the two sanction letters with the payment schedules prescribed therein plus the securities namely the personal guarantee, the mortgage and the debenture. From the foregoing, the first part of the First issue is answered affirmatively, and the terms and conditions 10 M of the credit facilities are as explained herein to answer the second part of the first issue. The second issue is, "if the first issue is answered in the affirmative, whether there is a breach of the terms and conditions of the finance facility contract by either party". The plaintiff's claim of USD 658,841.55 is strongly disputed by the Defendants. In the Written Statement of Defence, the Defendant claimed to have repaid all the monies advanced to the 1st Defendant through the demand loan facility of USD 1,200,000 and discharged a portion of their debt in the Term Loan facility of USD 1,100,000. According to the Defendant's WSD, the Plaintiff engaged in an illegal arrangement with Sun Machineries Limited which prejudiced the Defendants. Since the Defendants confess to have discharged only a certain portion of the second loan facility, it is apparent and undisputed that there is a portion of a loan which is not discharged. The question for determination is what amount of the loan is remaining unsettled? In the written closing submissions, the Plaintiff has blamed the defendant for having failed to prove that the loan has been fully paid as per the terms and conditions of the facilities. In my view, this assertion is a plaintiff's attempt to shift the burden of proof. Rules of evidence requires that, "he who alleges must prove" (See Section 110 (1) of the Evidence Act Cap 16 of the R.E 2019 (The Evidence Act)). This is to say, it is upon the Plaintiff to prove what she is alleging against the Defendants. In this case, there should be a prove from the plaintiff that the 1st Defendant has not discharged the loans advanced as per the terms and conditions of the facility letters. 11 M The statement of account attempted to be tendered by the plaintiff which could show the repayment trend to ascertain what was paid by the 1st Defendant and what was the outstanding amount alleged to be owed by the defendant could not be admitted as exhibit though it would have been the best and direct evidence to prove whether the loan was paid or not. In absence of this direct evidence to prove any unpaid amount owed to the Plaintiff, in her closing submissions, the Plaintiff invited the application of preponderance of Probability under Section 3 (2) (b) of the Evidence Act Cap 6 of 2019 R.E which provide: - "(2) A fact is said to be proved when - (a) (b) in civil matters, including matrimonial causes and matters, its existence is established by a preponderance ofprobability. " By applying preponderance of probability as a standard of prove in Civil matters (See The Manager, NBC, Tarime vs Enock M. Chacha 1993 TLR 228 (TZHC), I have considered the whole scenario and the circumstances of the case. It is not in dispute that in 2015, the Plaintiff advanced two types of loans to the 1st Defendant. It is further not in dispute that sometimes in 2016 the Defendants met repayment difficulties which prompted a request for adjustment of the repayment schedule which was accordingly agreed by the Plaintiff and consequently effected. In a bid to prove the outstanding figure, PW1 tendered some correspondences which in my view, maps the progression of the status of the outstanding balance of the loan facility. These documents included the Demand Notice (Exhibit P8 Collectively) which clearly mentioned USD 658,841.55 as an outstanding amount from the loan facility. The plaintiff tendered further a letter dated 17th December 2019, forming part of 12 Exhibit P7 Collectively which was the Defendants reply to demand notice in which the 1st Defendant gave several excuses justifying his inability to repay the amount of USD 658,841.55 and instead offered to pay USD 250,000 to offset the entire outstanding amount. Nothing in these letters showing that the Defendants clearly disputed the amount in the plaintiff's demand letter. Up to this point, it shows that by 2019, the outstanding amount was USD 658,481.55 which was not disputed by the Defendants but was being negotiated to be settled by a lesser amount USD 250,000.00. In further reply to a further demand notice dated 4th August 2020 (part of exhibit P9 collectively), the Defendants vide a letter written by AF Attorneys dated 10th August 2020, forming part of Exhibit P7 collectively, continued to insist on settling the outstanding amount by paying USD 250,000. In all the replies to the Demand letters (Exhibits P7 collectively) the defendants never categorically disputed the amount of USD 658,481 claimed by the Plaintiff although they appear to claim that they made some deposits which settled part of the loan. In the Written Statement of Defence, the Defendants contended that the Demand Ioan of USD 1,200,000 was fully paid and a portion of the Term loan was discharged. Generally, the Defendants never mentioned which part of loan remained unsettled, neither in the pleadings and in the evidence nor in the replies to various demand notices which could counter the plaintiffs claim of USD 658,481. When DW1 was cross examined, his answers demonstrated a demeanour which can be construed as a struggle to conceal some facts. For the facts which seemed to disclose adverse information, he provided simple and 13 evasive answers such as "I can't remember, it happened long time ago." Even when he was given a document to refresh his mind, he didn't want to read but insisted, "I can't read these documents with long time information" Contrary to what is in the WSD that the 1st Defendant paid a portion of the Term loan facility without disclosing the amount of the unpaid potion, DW1 stated during cross examination that all the loan was repaid. In his witness statement, DW1 stated that the Defendant offered to pay 250,000 USD to offset the entire claim, but the Plaintiff declined the offer. Although it is the Plaintiff who is to provide sufficient evidence to make his case, these contradictory statements shake the demeanour of DW1 to strengthen the circumstantial evidence in the plaintiff's case. In a summary, the contents of DWl's Witness Statement constituted statement to the effect that the 1st Defendant failed to repay the loan due to trading at a loss caused by falling of the price of the rent with most of the tenants going out of business causing the business almost empty (Paragraph 8 of DWl's Witness Statement). Further contents in that Witness statement stated that the 1st Defendant's finances crumbled when she was reassessed by the Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA) to pay a sum amounting to TZS. 146,047,514.00. (Paragraph 9 of DWl's Witness .Statement). In my view, these statements indicate existence of unpaid loan. I have considered the submissions of the Defendants and the case they cited, Exim Bank versus Trulite Investment Limited and 3 Others, Commercial Case No 47 of 2019 page 9 and found that the situation in that case differ from the instant situation. In Exim's case, the claim was to be proved by an affidavit seeking for default judgment which contained inadmissible annexures to the extent of rendering the said affidavit to be 14 considered as with no annexure at all. In the instant matters, there are other pieces of evidence which support the Plaintiff's case as noted in the correspondences involving demand letters in Exhibits P 7, Exhibit P8 and Exhibit P9. From what I construe from the whole scenario, the 1st Defendant was issued with a Ioan to the tune of total of USD 2,300,000.00 which was guaranteed by the 2nd Defendant and the other aforesaid securities. It is established that some amount of the loan is already settled while some amount still outstanding. In various correspondences in demand letters, the Defendants did not dispute the claimed amount of USD 658,481 but offered to settle it by a lesser amount of USD 250,000. Even though the Bank statement could not be tendered to provide direct evidence on the breakdown of the loan, the circumstantial evidence sufficiently establishes that up to the last reply to the demand notice in August 2020 there is an outstanding amount of USD 658,481 which was still unsettled by the 1st Defendant and that the Defendant had already categorically claimed not to have funds to settle the amount. From this narration, it is apparent that the loan is not fully paid hence there is a breach of terms and conditions of the loan facilities by the 1st Defendant. The second issue is therefore answered in affirmative. The third issue is whether the 2nd defendant guaranteed the obligation of the repayment of the loan and to what extent. Although in the Written Statement of Defence the 2nd Defendant denied having guaranteed the loans, evidence shows the contrary as revealed in the identification statement in the Witness statement of Al Nasir Mohamed Somji (DW1) who sworn that he was the guarantor and the principal officer of the 1st Defendant. The further evidence of DW1 never indicated any denial in 2nd Defendant being a guarantor. Even the denial statement in the 15 written statement of defence was not supported by any statement from DW1. It remains that no evidence adduced to counter the existence of Exhibit P4 which was a personal guarantee by the 2nd Defendant which undertook to guarantee the payment of the loan facilities. For the first time in the written submissions, the Defendants argued that the guarantor was discharged after the 1st Defendant and the plaintiff made variation which led to execution of the second sanction letter. According to the Defendant, such a variation which was not disclosed to the guarantor violated Section 95 of the Law of Contract Act Cap 345 and consequently discharged the guarantor. I have gone through the second sanction letter which is Exhibit P6 and found that, as rightly submitted by the plaintiff's counsel, there is a part signed by Mr. Al Nasir Mohammad Somji (2nd Defendant) who was identified therein as a guarantor. This endorsement on Exhibit P6 indicates that the 2nd Defendant was aware of what was transacted through that sanction letter for the loan he guaranteed and therefore he cannot deny having been involved in making the variation. After all, according to the Defence evidence, DW1 who identified himself as a guarantor is also the 2nd Defendant as well as the principal officer of the 1st Defendant. Being the Principal Officer of the 1st Plaintiff, the 2nd Defendant can't plead ignorance of whatever deal accomplished between the 1st Defendant and the Plaintiff. At this juncture, the Defendants' arguments that the 2nd Defendant was not a guarantor and that he was not informed about the variation which resulted to the 2nd sanction letter are baseless and unfounded. This concludes the third issue affirmatively that the 2nd Defendant guaranteed the loan to the extent of USD 2,300,000 as per the Personal Guarantee and Indemnity which was registered to the tune of USD 2,875,000.00. (Exhibit P 4). 16 The final issue is "to what reliefs are the parties entitled?". Except for the relief of general damages, since the court has found that the plaintiff has adduced sufficient evidence to prove breach of terms and conditions of the loan facility by the 1st Defendant and that the 2nd defendant has a duty under the personal guaranteed agreement to ensure repayment of the said loan, the plaintiff has managed to prove her case against the Defendants jointly and severally. However, on General damages, there was no evidence adduced to prove any damages suffered by the Plaintiff sufficient to be reimbursed by an order of this court. In this respect Judgment is hereby entered against the 1st and 2nd Defendants jointly and severally, and the Plaintiff is entitled to the following reliefs: - (a) Immediate payment of the said USD 658,841.55 (b) Payment of interest on (a) above at the rate of 7.5% per annum from 01sl December 2019 till the date of Judgement as specified in the Sanction Letters. (c) Payment of penal interest on (a) above at the rate of 5.0% per annum from 01st December 2019 till the date of Judgement as specified in the Sanction Letters. (d) Payment of interest at the Court's rate of 12% on item (a) from the date of judgment to the date of payment in full over and above the contractual interest referred to above. (e) Costs of the suit. It is so ordered. Dated at Dar es Salaam this 10th Day of January 2022 Court; - Judgment if delivered in Court this 10th Day of January 2022 in the Presence of Faith Kiwanga Advocate for the Defendants and Faith Kiwanga Holding brief for Dr. Abduel Kitururu Advocate for the Plaintiff. Right to Appeal is explained. K. T. R Mteule, J Sgd 10/1/2022 18