NYALULU JINASA MITA CRIMINAL SESSION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA IN THE SUB-REGISRTY SHINYANGA AT SHINYANGA CRIMINAL SESSION CASE REF. NO. 20231220000040533 REPUBLIC VERSUS 1. NYALULU JINASA MITA 2. JONAS KAZINZA FUNGAMEZA 3. JOSEPH CASTORY KASHINJE JUDGMENT 10th May & 26th June, 2024. S.M. KULITA, J. The accused persons herein, namely Nyalulu Jinasa Mita, Jonas Kazinza Fungameza and Joseph Castory Kashinje stand charged with Murder, contrary to Sections 196 and 197 of the Penal Code [Cap 16 RE 2022]. It is alleged by the prosecution that, on 26th May, 2023 during night hours at Seeke village in Kahama District, in Shinyanga Region, the accused persons murdered one Makani Mita. Facts of the case as they were presented by the prosecution which gave rise to this trial are the following; that, the deceased was living at 1 Igunga in Tabora Region. He was working as herbalist, assisted by one Bundala Lukelesha. That, on 26th May, 2023 the deceased received a client’s phone who was in need of treatment from him. That, the treatment was to be done at the said client’s house at Kahama in Shinyanga Region. That, they made an arrangement and that, the deceased together with his assistant started to go to Kahama. It is said that, all in the way thereto, the deceased was making communications with the said client, who later on, informed the deceased that there would be another person who would receive them at Kahama bus stand. That went as planned, because when they reached at Kahama, the 2nd accused received them, contending that, he was directed by the 3rd accused. Information goes further that, the 2nd accused entertained them at a bar till the time when the 3rd accused joined them. The facts further reveal that the 3rd accused cleared the bar bills for the frinks that they had taken. That, thereafter the said 3rd accused allowed the 2nd accused to take his guests to his house. They went towards thereto by using a tricycle (bajaj), they then dropped somewhere and started walking. On the way while walking, it is when the 3rd accused appeared with other people who together attacked the deceased and his assistant with pangas. Unlike the assistant who 2 managed to escape, the deceased failed, as a result, he was, after a report being made, discovered to have been killed. Investigation was conducted and the accused persons were arrested. Upon interrogations, they all confessed to have killed the deceased. As such, the accused persons were arraigned to court for murdering Makani Mita. When the information of murder was read to the accused persons, during Plea taking and Preliminary hearing, they all pleaded not guilty thereto. Further, on 2nd May, 2024 when the case came up for trial, the said information of murder was reminded to the accused persons who maintained their plea of not guilty. While the Prosecution case was led by Ms. Caroline Mushi, assisted by Ms. Nyamyaga Magoti, State Attorneys; Mr. Chrissantus Chengula, Ms. Gloria Ikanda and Mr. Emmanuel Rugamila, Advocates represented the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Accused Persons respectively. In discharging their duty of proving the charge against the accused persons, the prosecution side summoned nine witnesses and tendered five exhibits. The evidence of the prosecution and defense side can be summarized as follows: The 1st witness for prosecution, Dr. Zuberi Masaka (PW1) testified that, he is a Medical Doctor whose duties, among others, is to conduct 3 autopsy. He went further stating that, on 27th May, 2023, while at his working station, Kahama Municipal Hospital, he conducted autopsy for the deceased body, after he was identified by the deceased’s relatives. He mentioned the deceased’s name being Makani Mita. His investigations revealed that, the deceased sustained cut wounds on his head which were inflicted by sharp objects. He said that the body was all covered with blood. He thereafter filed the Postmortem Report. PW1 tendered it to court and the same was admitted as exhibit P1. When he was cross examined, the witness stated that, the cause of death was loss of blood following severe cut wounds on head. Bundala Lukelesha testified as PW2. His testimony is to the effect that, he was the assistant of the deceased in his medical treatments services. He said that, on 26th May, 2023 he and the deceased went to Kahama following a request of one of their clients. He said that, when they reached at Kahama from Igunga where they reside, they were received by the 2nd accused person who had been so instructed by the 3rd Accused. He stated further that, after being received by the said 2nd accused they were stationed at bar, till when the 3rd accused person joined them and then allowed the said 2nd accused to take them to his house, where the treatment would be conducted. PW2 stated that, by that time, it was about 2000 hours. 4 PW2 went further stating that, by the time he thought that they were nearby the client’s home, while walking on foot with his phone torch on, he saw 5 (five) people, among whom he managed to identify the 3rd accused person. He said that, as they crossed each other while moving towards opposite directions, suddenly those people started cutting the victim with pangas. PW2 added that, he managed to see the 2nd accused person joining those who were cutting the deceased and added that, he personally prohibited him from running away from the invasion. PW2 stated to have managed to escape. After an escape, he tried to call the deceased but his phone was not reachable. There where he had ran to, he was offered to sleep in a good Samaritan’s house. PW2 went on stating that, on the next morning they went to the scene and found the deceased’s body with severe cut wounds. When cross examined PW2 stated that, they reached Kahama at about 1700 hours and that during the assault incident he lost his phone. When further cross examined the witness stated that, he does not remember the victim’s phone number, but it was in his phone which was lost. Tibi Mita who testified as PW3 stated that, in early May, 2023 he happened to meet with the deceased, who is his brother, at their father’s house at Mwamashinga Igunga. While there, other people 5 joined them. They were in need of the deceased to treat their cattle. PW3 said that, those people left with the deceased to the deceased’s home. The witness went on stating that, on 26th May, 2023 the deceased asked for his (PW3’s) motorcycle to transport him and his assistant to the bus stand so that they could go to Kahama to attend one of his guests who was in need of the treatment for his cattle. He mentioned the said person being among the ones whom they were together at their father’s house. PW3 went on stating that, at about 2000 hours on that day, he received a phone call of the deceased’s assistant who informed him that, they have been invaded but he managed to escape. He added that, the assistant told him that, as he had seen the attacks, he was not expecting the victim to be alive. PW3 said that, they started going to Kahama and met the victim’s body still at the scene of crime. He added that, after all official procedures being done, they were allowed to take victim’s body for burial. The witness stated that, two weeks later, the Police informed him that, they managed to arrest one of the bandits. He said that, he visited at Igunga Police Station and saw the 1st accused as the bandit who had killed the deceased. He added that, the 1st accused person admitted to 6 have killed the deceased, for the reason that, he (deceased) had also killed his (1st accused’s) sister. When cross examined PW3 stated that, he did not know the person who had gone at their father’s house for the need of treatments from the deceased. He went ahead contending that, he had never observed any misunderstanding between 1st accused and the victim. He added that, the 1st accused’s sister had passed away 2 (two) years back, as she had fallen sick. PW3 further stated that, one Diva Mita had once been called by Police Officers before the 1st accused was arrested. PW4 one Shinga Ndondi Mlekwa testified to the effect that, he is a local leader at Seege in Kahama. He stated that, on 26th May, 2023 at about 2000 hours he received a call from one of his residents called Yusuph who informed him of a person who entered into his house and does not want to speak anything. He said that, he went at Yusuph’s house and questioned that person. Upon asking him, that person stated that, he, together with the deceased, were called to Kahama for local treatments but they were invaded while on the way to the customer’s house. The witness stated that, Bundala was just crying and he was a newcomer at Kahama. On that note, PW4 took Bundala to his home where he had a sleep till the morning. PW4 added that, they discovered the deceased’s body in the morning and so informed the Police. The 7 Police arrived and communicated with the deceased’s relatives through Bundala’s phone. Happiness Andrea Mtawala testified as PW5. His testimony is to the effect that, she is a Justice of Peace who recorded extra-judicial statement of the 1st accused person on 16th June, 2023 upon the said person confessing to have murdered the victim/deceased one Makani Mita. She added that, before she recorded it, the 1st accused told her that, he was arrested on 7th June, 2023 at Dodoma. The witness prayed to tender the 1st accused’s extra judicial statement, and after the trial within a trial being conducted, the same was admitted as exhibit P2, with the condition that the reasons would be incorporated in the judgment. When cross examined PW5 stated that, by the time the 1st accused was taken to her, he did not know that she (PW5) was a Justice of Peace till when she identified herself. She added that, the 1st accused never told her as to who were his companions in killing the victim. PW4 insisted that, the 1st accused had no injuries though she did not put off his clothes for inspection. H. 2332 D/CPL Njile who testified as PW6 stated that, he is a Police Officer who was sent from Kahama to Dodoma to take the 1st accused person. He said that, from Dodoma they started travelling with a public transport on 8th June, 2023. On the way thereto, the bus got a 8 breakdown at Igunga in Tabora Region. He thus handled the accused person to Igunga Police Station. He went on stating that, on 10th June, 2023, he took the accused person from lockup and went on with the journey towards Kahama. He said that they reached at Kahama on that same date, 10th June, 2023 at about 0900 hours. He concluded that having so reached at the Police Station, he handled the said 1st accused person to the Head of Criminal Investigation Department for Kahama District (OC-CID), SSP. Maro. F. 2548 D/SGT Mussa (PW7) testified that, he is a Police Officer at Kahama Police Station. He stated that, on 10th June, 2023 at 8000 hours he was at the Police Station where he was ordered to interrogate the 1st accused person. He went further stating that, he gave the said accused person all of his rights before he started to record his confession. The witness prayed to tender to court the 1st accused’s caution statement, and after trial within trial being conducted, the same was admitted as exhibit P3 with the conditions that the reasons reserved till in the judgment. When cross examined PW7 stated that, in his caution statement the 1st accused mentioned people whom he had cooperated with him in killing but he (PW7) does not know them. G. 5612 D/CPL John who testified as PW8 stated that, on 9th June, 2023 he was assigned to record confession of the 3rd accused person. 9 He said that, he gave all his rights before he started recording the said accused person’s confession statement. The witness prayed to tender the 3rd accused’s caution statement and after the trial within trial the same was admitted as exhibit P4 on the condition that the reasons reserved till in this judgment. PW8 stated that, he started to record the accused’s confession at 1731 hours and completed at 1900 hours. When cross examined, the witness stated that, the 3rd accused person did not mention phone numbers which were used in the payment transactions. The last witness for Prosecution, F. 6932 D/SGT George who testified as PW9 stated that, he is a Police Officer attached in the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) at Kahama Police Station. He stated that on 27th May, 2023 he was assigned to investigate this case. He went further stating that, he started by taking down statements of Bundala Lukelesha who was the deceased’s assistant. He went ahead telling the court that, from him he managed to get the victim’s phone number. From that number he investigated the phone numbers that the deceased used to communicated with before he had died. In corporation with his fellow Police they managed to get the phone number of the 2nd accused person which was not reachable when they tried to call it. He said as it was not reachable, they thus called another number held by one Ibrahim Magufuli who told them that, the phone number which is 10 not reachable is of his pipeline work mate. PW9 stated that, through the help of Ibrahim Magufuli they managed to arrest the 2nd accused person. He went ahead stating that, on the same day at about 2200 hours he started recording caution statement of the 2nd accused person. He completed at 2320 hours. The witness prayed to tender the 2nd accused person’s caution statement. After trial within a trial being conducted, it was admitted as exhibit P5 with the conditions that reasons reserved and the same would be incorporated in the judgment. PW9 went on stating that, the statement of the 2nd accused led to the arrest of the 3rd accused person and later on the 1st accused person. When cross examined, the witness stated that, he has forgotten the phone number of the 1st accused and that he not produced any proof on the registration of the phone numbers in question. He added that, he also never observed any communications between the 3rd accused and others but he alleged that proof of their communication is in his (3rd Accused’s) caution statement. PW9 further stated that, in making follow up of the accused persons through phone numbers, they used assistance from cyber intelligence and the mobile phone companies. On these nine witnesses, as I said earlier, the prosecution case got closed. In terms of the provisions of section 293(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the accused persons were found to have a case to 11 answer in Murder. After they had been addressed in terms of section 293(3) of the same Act, the accused persons opted to testify on oath and that they had no witnesses to call. The 1st Accused Person, Nyalulu Jinasa Mita testified as DW1. His testimony is to the effect that, he was arrested on 7th June, 2023 at his residential premise located at Chifutuka area in Dodoma region. He was taken to Dodoma Police Station and kept in lock up till 9th June, 2023 when the Police Officers from Kahama went to collect him from there for Kahama. They arrived at Kahama on 10th June, 2023. He said that, at about 2200 hours he was taken from lock up to a place called garage where the Police Officers started torturing him. He said that they did so to compel him confessing that he had killed Makani Mita. He added that, as he denied the allegations, torture continued on the next day. He insisted that, he continued denying, thus Police Officers wrote some papers and wanted him to sign on them, the act that he actually did. DW1 went ahead stating that, on 16th June, 2023 he was taken to the was Justice of Peace. That, the Police gave the said Justice of Peace two papers and she started writing on it. Lastly, he was required to sign on the said papers. He demanded the same be read before signing but he was just told that, the papers are for him to be taken to court, thus 12 he signed them. Concerning the allegations for murder, DW1 stated that, he never planned to kill the deceased as alleged. When cross examined, he stated that, he has been living at Dodoma since 2014. He also insisted that, he was put in a car boot when transferred from Dodoma to Kahama. Jonas Kazinza Fungameza (DW2) who is the 2nd Accused testified that, he was arrested on 27th May, 2023 by Police Officers alleging that he deals with the business of selling bhangi. He added that, on 28th May, 2023 interrogation started. He was asked to identify some phone numbers and the name “Ng’habi”. As he denied to have known them, he was thus tortured. He insisted that, he was tortured for three days till when he was given some papers to sign. He said that, the Police Officer told him that upon signing the said papers he would be left free to go home. On that note, he had to sign those papers but he was not released. Concerning the allegations for murder, DW2 stated that, on 26th May, 2023 he was just at home with his wife. He never committed the alleged offence. The 3rd Accused, Joseph Castory Kashinje (DW3) testified to the effect that, he was arrested by Police while at home, Nyakato, and taken to Kagongwa Police Station. It was 9th June, 2023. He said that there at 13 the Police Station he was interrogated about some phone numbers and some names of people whom he does not know. He went ahead stating that, as he denied knowing them, he was subjected to severe torture. DW3 further stated that, he was then given some papers to sign. He said that, for fear of further torture, he decided to sign them. He said that, he never committed the offence as he does not even know the victim and that on 26th May, 2023, he was at his home, Nyakato, with his family members. That marked the end of both parties’ testimonies. In view of the above evidence, the following issues call for determination: - 1. Whether the victim was met unnatural death (if yes), 2. Whether the accused persons are responsible for the death of the victim (if yes), 3. Whether the accused persons, with intention (malice aforethought) killed the victim. Concerning the first issue, whether the victim/deceased met unnatural death, first, from both sides’ testimonies, it is not in dispute that Makani Mita is dead. According to the Post Mortem Report which has been admitted in court as Exhibit P1, the cause of the death of the victim is Traumatic brain injury, due to deep cut wounds on the victim’s 14 head. The evidence from prosecution witness, Doctor (PW1) shows that, the deep cuts were inflicted by using a sharp object. Such deep cut wounds prove that, the victim was met unnatural death. As there is no evidence disapproving this fact, I find no need of dwelling much on this issue. It is thus positively proved that, the deceased, Makani Mita met unnatural death. Concerning the second issue, whether the accused persons are responsible for the killing of the victim Makani Mita, the prosecution side relies on visual identification done by PW2, the accused confessions through repudiated/retracted extra judicial and caution statements, and the general oral testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. For the sake of determining this issue as to whether these accused persons are responsible for killing the victim, I have prepared myself to determine the above highlighted pieces of evidence as adduced by the prosecution side. Whether those pieces of evidence have managed to hold the accused persons responsible for the killing, then prosecutions are obliged to meet the standard of proof on each of them. The same should be done beyond reasonable doubt. See, JACKSON MLONGA VS. THE REPUBLIC, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200 OF 2007, CAT at DODOMA. 15 On the issue of visual identification, the prosecution depends on the testimony of PW2 who was present when the deceased was invaded to death. His testimony shows that, it was a night of 2000 hours and that he was using his phone torch light. He said that through it, he recognized the 3rd accused person who was with other four people and the 2nd accused when he turned against them. He said that, he observed this within a short time without mentioning that duration. He added that, he was in terror but managed to escape. It is trite law that courts should closely examine the evidence of visual identification by a witness, as it was stated in the landmark decision of Waziri Amani V. Republic [1980] TLR 250; "In a case involving evidence of visual identification, no court should act on such evidence unless all possibilities of mistaken identity are eliminated and that the Court is satisfied that the evidence before it is absolutely watertight" See also a few similar decisions of the Court, including Raymond Francis vs Republic, [1994] TLR 100, Juma Senge vs. R, Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 2008, Obadia Msese vs. R, Criminal 16 Appeal No. 243 of 2008, Shamir John vs. R, Criminal Appeal No. 166 of 2004 (all unreported) In the testimony of PW2 concerning identification, he never told the court on the intensity of the phone torch light that he had used for identification. The said witness also said that, he used a very short time to identify the invaders. His own testimony shows that, he also was running from the invasion to the point that, he lost his phone on the incident. To sum up, PW4 testified to have met PW2 in fear and shock to the point that he was crying after he had escaped from the invaders. These situations, in all means, cannot be termed as favorable conditions for PW2 to make visual identification of the invaders correctly. Taking into consideration that, mistaken identity can be made even to people whom we know them prior, then under these unfavorable conditions, it is much possible for PW2 to make mistaken identity to people whom he had met them for the first time and within a short period. On that account, I am firm that, the evidence on visual identification by PW2 is not water tight to warrant usage of it in holding the 2nd and 3rd accused persons are responsible for killing the victim. In cementing the issue of visual identification, PW3 stated that, before he met his death, the victim told him that he was going to 17 Kahama following a call by one of the people who once followed him at their father’s house. This evidence as testified by PW3 proves that it is hearsay, thus inadmissible. See, Mpemba Mponeja vs. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 256 of 2009 CAT at MWANZA. Concerning the confessions by accused persons. Firstly, there is extra-judicial statement alleged to have been made by the 1st accused person, then the caution statements alleged to have been made by all accused persons. The record shows that, 1st accused was arrested on 7th June, 2023 and reached at Kahama on 10th June, 2023. Further, he confessed through caution statement on the same date that he reached at Kahama, 10th June, 2023. The evidence shows that, the 1st accused was taken to the Justice of Peace on 16th June, 2023. There is no evidence as to what hindered the accused, who, if truly volunteered to confess through caution statement on 10th June, 2023, never agreed to confess before Justice of Peace, till 16th June, 2023. This situation is doubtful. It is doubtful as to whether the 1st accused freely confessed before both, the Police Officer who noted down the caution statement and the Justice of Peace who recorded the extra judicial statement. 18 In Mashimba Dotto @ Lukubanija vs. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 317 of 2013 (unreported), the Court of Appeal, relying on the provision of section 32(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, held to the effect that, upon restraint, a suspect is to be taken to the Justice of Peace "as soon as possible". It is important to also remember that, in the above cited case, the Court of Appeal found the delay of six days in taking the extra-judicial statement, and it was regarded not proper, as apart from the said delay, there was lack of an explanation by the prosecution regarding the said delay, and that the appellant had contended that during this period of delay he had been tortured by police. In this case, indirectly, prosecution can be taken to have shown that the 1st accused was not sent to the Justice of Peace upon his arrest because he was waiting to be transferred to Kahama, a place where murder was committed, but, prosecution showed that, the 1st accused was taken to Kahama on 10th June, 2023, why then delay of 6 days to take the accused person to the Justice of Peace? On those premises, basing on the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Mashimba Dotto @ Lukubanija (supra), I hesitate to hold the 1st accused person liable relying on the said extra judicial statement. 19 On the issue of caution statements by all accused persons. The evidence shows that, all accused persons repudiated or/and retracted them contending to have never made them but signing only and that they had been subjected to torture. I am alive with the principle of law that, repudiated or retracted confessions need corroboration before the court can decide to convict the accused persons relying on them. In the case of Michael Luhiye v. Republic [1994] TLR 181 it was held as follows: - "It is always desirable to look for corroboration in support of a retracted confession before acting on it but a court may convict on retracted confession even without corroboration.’’ In the case of Dickson Elia Nsamba Shapwata and Another v. Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 92 of 2007, CAT at Mbeya, it was held; “With respect, we agree with Mr. Mkumbe that, it is always desirable to look for corroboration in support of a confession which has been retracted/repudiated before acting on it to the detriment of the appellant.” See also Tuwamoi v. Uganda (1967) EA 84 in which it was held; 20 “The present rule then as applied in East Africa, as regard to retracted confession, is that as a matter of practice or prudence the trial court should direct itself that it is dangerous to act upon a statement that has been retracted in the absence of corroboration in some material particular, but that the court might do so if it is fully satisfied that in some circumstances of the case that the confession must be true” See also Hemed Abdallah v. Republic (1995) TLR 172” (Emphasis supplied.) With the above reasoning, it follows therefore that, to act on the retracted/repudiated confession of the accused person, firstly there must be corroboration or secondly, in absence of corroboration, the court must be fully satisfied, while basing on some circumstances of the case that, those confessions must be true. The question is, is there pieces of evidence to corroborate the retracted/repudiated confessions by the accused persons? Back to the testimony of PW9 who is the Investigator of the case at hand. This witness testified that, he investigated the numbers that the deceased was communicating with, shortly before his death, through making follow up of the deceased’s phone number. He said that in doing so, he 21 managed to get the 2nd accused person through his co-worker, one Ibrahim Magufuli. He achieved it through the help of cyber unit and the respective phone companies. As the accused persons denies to have communicated with the deceased, the prosecution ought to have called witnesses and/or to tender in court printout of the outgoing and incoming calls from the deceased’s phone number to verify the said Investigator’s (PW9’s) saying. This printout would also act as evidence to corroborate the repudiated confessions. However, this document was not tendered to court. The investigator, if he used the deceased’s phone number to apprehend all accused persons, as shown in the evidence, he could have either mentioned that number in court or tender the phone company’s document to prove phone registration number. This was not done by the said investigator of the case, contending that he has forgotten even the deceased’s phone number. Again, as the Investigator stated to have apprehend the 2nd accused person through the help of Ibrahim Magufuli, I would expect him to have been called and testify in court. But, neither Ibrahim Magufuli himself was called to testify nor his statement was tendered to court to corroborate the prosecution’s case. 22 Confessions by the accused persons show that, payment for their killing job was done through the mobile phone. But, there is no transactions’ printout from accused persons’ phone numbers. This too would act as evidence to corroborate the confessions, but there are no such printouts. Having failed to find any other evidence to corroborate the accused persons’ confessions, I had to ask myself as to whether there are some circumstances in this case that can make this court to have been fully satisfied that the confessions by the accused persons are nothing but the truth? Here, I must admit that, in this case, there are no circumstances to convince this court that the confession by the 1st accused person is true. This is because the doubts that have been raised in the extra judicial statement above, extend to affect the caution statement as well. The said doubt in the extra judicial statement depict that the caution statement was not the result of accused person’s free will statements. This is because, had the accused person freely volunteered to record his caution statement on that 10th June, 2023, he would not have denied to go to the Justice of Peace on that same day for extra judicial statement. Also, a Police Officer, H. 2332 D/Cpl. Njile (PW6) testified to have taken the 1st accused person from Dodoma to Kahama through public 23 transport and stopped at Igunga due to car breakdown. In rebuttal the 1st accused person stated that, he was put in a small car boot while transported from Dodoma to Kahama. The 1st Accused’s testimony on the means that had been used in transporting him is more convincing than that stated by the Police Officer (PW6). Had they used a public transport as their means of transport, breakdown would not hinder them from taking another transport from Igunga to Kahama. It follows therefore that, they used private transport, that is why they decided to stop and sleep at Igunga where the deceased’s relatives are living. This alone is torture to the 1st accused person. With these, I hesitate to convict the 1st accused person solely basing on the caution statement he is purported to have made. The same applied to the caution statements of the 2nd and 3rd accused persons. Had they volunteered to confess as alleged by the Prosecution, they would not have failed to disclose important information on this case that look to be missing, as per the above analysis. On that account, I am of the settled mind that, this issue is answered in the negative, that the accused persons herein are not the ones responsible for the murder of the victim, Makani Mita, following failure of the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. I 24 thus proceed to find them not guilty of murder nor any other offence cognate to it, hence acquitted. They should thus be released forthwith, unless they are held for any other lawful cause. S.M. Kulita JUDGE 26/06/2024 DATED at SHINYANGA this 26th day of June, 2024. S.M. Kulita JUDGE 26/06/2024 25