19820423 TZHC Tanga1

- -.---. oqtUTXJI QJ1 sntlq S)M TflS OTL1 000sqottn;ep 0149 •OOqppbTi ot, ans oq, usTr sçt. uT etXop OAUlq PITlOLtS 9,uepuodsaa ot. 0T 20 1 OTdtJITS ST STtLL sTx otX:Seo3ThtTteTo 0 S) JO • IO 1fl) JO txoxect ! OiU1O. UO pUt -eiou. xeUOT Ott SS T-OO eI. t10Tqfl0SSTp S1-T !e34çuI s.x; etq STLII •oij otteC uK 1"m L'Cowfj eqj. uio.x; =/oc O'sLIS ;o eoutq .uadsunsTttoAo.00x O. DUT31@GS !XJ 4 JflO qOTIq-STt :ttT'T0q0 uU qinoiq qJxopuOclSeJ OT49, OOS eTq O tOcflTOsSTpat -Jv - .- • UflOOa O. SM: eO2TXt OtTL TJePU S14eTQ°S CtIr O IQOeS TP.TTLOW 'T: ; :çi. xo; petXflOaOJ OJBM =/0065t1s q.UnOmu sçT-j ;O . qn =/0i7'T t sqs Qq J0 eurtq. eU.. .icc 6LT0Tqm su0nq34uO0 itfluOUI epw. OH • ieqWeUI OATOJ puts dn ppd st jo •euo 6 kqDTOOS. p.Tts m-q GJTT 2uTjnp SM UptZOd581 9U • - L96T as- ;3ovq J-; sw .-slqq 'TPP-1SH TUP!tll 590 1TM: OTT pus uwn)oqoq.ss '9UopUOcl9oJLTq. JO OOUOPTAO. etfl. IUOJ; pUt paAT050tp ueoq GOUTS . ' JCAOMOtT svq q-I frt '•to OUStZTPJO s.eT 8 cOQ OATUJOdOOD eL[q. Je.ptXfl poJasTEI1VTrtp £qjiunxd 1JV!.0TO0S OAT5JOd000 u eq oq, peon sioiotij OUoV SM SODIfl : SsT (;;T-uTsTa TJo) 000 0 0 0 0 00 • NariQcIaU ° VANSWm{ OEOHVW SflOJOA (uSpuoJea po) NvTmaav° 00 WJNVL '1TUOHO)IVII- 0ON1W VIAl WA VfOWII •• - — 'bSE[ 'eJ3:OSW 'H'f :OJ0;ea S oTIsTa - tJ2 tIs TO qjnoo qoTjqsT(j) (aqq jo gL6T ;o •oj essçj ITATO TrT.'o) 9L61 [O 97 0N rvaaav IIAID . - VDKVI LV VIKVZKVI IO lUflOD HfIH an NI I I I because the defendant ws'. in law, a ndn.. person. This should be enough to dispose of this cp3eai. Hearing, however, proceeded with one Mohamed Musa, who used to be secretary of the defunét society, appearing for the defendant, In his statement in defence thç said Mohamed Musa -told the trial Court that all the money contributed by the respondent was utilized by the society during its life time. ' In a surprise judgement the learned Resident Magstrate who tried the case rejected the evidence of Mohamed Musa that all the money' wo.s.used because he, i.e. Mohamed Musa, did not "furnish the Court with documentary proof to justify expenditure". He,' i.e. the learned Resident Magistrate, was satisfied that there was still a balance of Shs, 550/ due and owinto the respondent. He concluded by Saying: "It is, therefore, accepted that the said Mohamed Musa his personal capacity has to pay the balance amount of Sho. 550/= to the plaintiff". With the greatest respect this is outrageous, Even if it were Shown * which of course was not - that Mohamed Musa was the liquidator of the defunct society there would be no justification, legally or even morally, for anyone least of all a Court of law, to burden him with the society's liabilities in his personal capacity At any rate Mo}ed Musa was not 11 party to the proceeding. If the respondent So wished 'he Should have joined him as a defendant right from the begining, In comrning to the conclusion which he did the learned Resident Magistrate clearly errëd,, His judgement and decree are s thus, qüashèd thd sOt:asi6e.. In the final result this. 'appeal must s'ucceed and it is, accordingly, allowed.' The reOpcndent will pay the costs, Delivered in open Court at Tanga this 23rd April, 1982. (H.E.D: SrJ Judge.