wengret windrose safari t ltd vs director of wildlife 1999 tzhc 16 9 february 1999

I N THE H I G H COURT O F T A N Z A N I A (DAT? E S B A L A A M DISTRICT R E G IS TR Y) A T DAT? E S S A L A A M MISC- CIVIL CAUSE NO, 35 OF 1.998 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION B Y WENGERT WlNDEOSE SAFARI (T) LIMITED FOR ORDERS OF CERTIORARI "■ MANDAMUS BETWEEN WENGERT-WTNDROSE SAFARf (T) LIMITED,, APPLICANT' AND 1, THE DIRECTOR OF W I L D L I F E . ....... 1ST RESPONDENT 2. THE MINISTER FOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND TOURISM.,, -. 2ND RESPONDENT 3. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.... ,, 3RD RESPONDENT JUDGEMENT KALEGEYA, J : Auy r jS v h u by t])F. 1st Respondent's HrtiOli of w] thdrdwing two hunri rig hi ; froO; !:j S ] ji’sncfi the Applicant decided to ,i s 1 ■hoi decision by way of an application for Certiorari and Ma ndaiisus seeking for the following reliefs; "a) An yrder of Certiorari :.o remove info the High C o u r t arid garish the 1st Respondent's decision dat~d 1 5tb May 1 998 and 1st. June 1993 in wl jioh !he First and Second Responder; ts , r espeo t jvo 1.y ; decided not to allocate tc the Applicant the hunting blocks known as Mnhesi Caine Reserve and Kiaigo Game Reserve (Fast) h) An order of Certiorari to remove into the High Court the First Respondent's decision to make alienations to o ik%r person(s} of the hunting blocks known as Muhesi Caine Reserve and Kiri go Game Rensi vfijrlASf )■ c) an order of Mandamus to compel the First Respor;rlan t to rn-sl locat.fi the Muhsoi Game "fissrvs and K i a ]ao G.-niir- KKServfi (East liijnt; ;;^riy blocks to thn Applicant", The Applicant attacks the lot Respondent 1$ action for,, failure of natural just i c e , in that he was not afforded chance of being haaro arid n o p; ior i eafions for withdrawal of the blocks warn assigned; Abuse of p o w e r s , in that the 1st Respondent did not consider that the deadline for payment of fees was 30th April arid not the unilateral deadline of 27th April which was a public holiday as per "CONSENSUS BETWEEN THE MINISTER OF TOURTF>M, NATURAT. RESOURCES AND E N V I R O N M E N T T H E WIT.DT.IFE DIVISION, ON ONE P A R T . AND TANZANIA HUNTING OPERATORS ASSOCIATION (TAHOA) ON THE OTHER PART (Applicant is a member of TAHOA); not taking into accoijnt re 1e v anI m a t t e r s , in that the 1st Respondent did not consider a relevant fact that " for viable management of a hunting company,, a minimus;; of five hunting blocks is necHSsar y " ; and u m easonabl a ness . first . trie decision was based on falsa representations including that an t-S-w* t, . — ire invoice was served on r;i;ii w n *sn ii. : . ’ V no i. \ r;rii ■:r- riar» r r i- ~ ^ i .r} ra■'* iv rh s i;;■1a a ■ home when he has no such facility, and secondly, that conditions set: made it- impossible for Applicant fo pay as the fax message was reo.Hjved on 27th which w^as not a deadline and it was a hoi iday,. and tha.t 1st Respondent refused to receive payment on f 0; :, wiijln the deadline was 3 011; April, 199??. o Mhhsf N , and uutema Ailvoca te s , iepr e Se u i.e u rue A up 1 i rit. while Mr Kajnba,. "finior State Attorney,, represented the Respondsn ts . The following matte;s ni s undisputed. The Applicant ).s a. 1 iinith;1 liability company car Tying on, among other things, wild ] i Fe h ::■ i ’:;.j bi;s: iir:;s :n Tanzania, During the hunting season of 1997/98 the Applies it. had been allocated five hunting blocks - Lake Natron Gams ooutrolled Area (North). Mayowosi Game Reserve (South) . Muhesi Game Reserve,, K i ?, igo Game Reserve (Fast) and Ki?;igo Game Reserve (Cent ra ] ), On fi/4/98 vide letter Ref, G D / T .80/81/89 the First Respondent informed the Applicant that three of his blocks - Muhesi Game Reser v e ,. Kizigu Game Reserve \,H iIi rr'i t H iiu r '.i iU (.} IriiiiH ftHSni VH - i vV ■U iiIiviH I ~ U i .i..1.i— HU , quota - w ise . in that the 40% mar k was not; struck,, for only 14%,. 83% and 16% r aspect ive 1 y had been attained. 0 r; 9th April 10 93 trie Applicant, by letter ; corrected the 1st; Respondent by saying that the-; percentages ci t ed were not true and rectified by stating instead 22. f%,. 49% and 28% r especfi ve 1y . On 25th April . 1 998, by letter Ref. nn/T .80 / n n /1 2 9 'he 1st Respondent admitted the error uoueptiug the figures stated (save for the firs^ of which only 21% was accepted) by ^npl icant as being the correct ones. In the same letter however the ^ ir st Respondent required the Applicant to top-up to 40% for the two urider -ui i 1 ised block?; by 2^th Apr i1,, 1 998. 25 th Apr il ,. 1998 was a Saturday while 27!]'; April was a public holiday. App 1 o m n t 13 prayer to pay the 'top up fee on 29th April; 1998, was refused allegedly for. being time barred. A On 1 -1 h May . 1098, th« 1st Respondent vide Tetter R e f . No .GD/T .80/79/1 1 2 . -s -a] iOf-ated only three hunting blocks to Appl icrin f . hake Natron Game Controlled Area (North) . Mayowosi Game Reserve (F » o u th j arid R \ z \ g o Game Reserve (Central ) . Or. 19th May, 1 098, the Applicant appealed to the 2nd Responder; against the non-a 1 1ocat j on of tlie two other blocks, VtAe. wh ioh appeal was declared to being without merit 4*** letter Ref. G D / T ,80/fifi/1 8^. Doiirs of that avenue closed Applicant came to court. The application is supported by two affi.davits of Appl jcant's Managing Director, Fran?: Joseph Winaert-~one filed together with the Application while the other one (s u p p l e me nt ur y} was filed in reply to count e r-a f f id a v i t by Respondents. The two affidavits are supplevented by an affidavit of Eddy M o s h j , an Administrative Manager' of the Applicant. On the other hand, the Respondent's Counter-affidavit was sworn by Breneus Francis Ndnncuru, a Senior Game Officer in tlie Directorate of wild life i n the Ministry of Tour is;;i and Nat ur al Resources arid was suppl emHuted by an affidavit of F»a.i di Hassan Mnke^i , a ganie Warden in the same Director stationed at Arusha,, Tnk Applicant's ooTitentiun is that: the withdrawal of the 2 ’runt ing blocks was ma 1 1 c i.ous , clandestine and implied. On the other hand the Respondents dispute in total all that was n e g a t i v h ]y a] 1eg«d . They argue that the decision was properly reached; that; Applicant was sufficiently given notice and afforded chance Co he heard as ufir oommun 1 cat 1.oris dated nth April 1995; 2 5 111 April, 1998 and an invoice j ssued by Miikeni on 1 Rth April arid fur? her extension orally to 28th from 27th April (/citing ("A) Agro Industries htmited Versus The Attorney Genera! . Civil A pp ea 7 No. 34 of 1990): that; reasons advanced by 2nd Respondent are reasonable as they were based "on official correspondences and documents available at the Ministry"* that the "fees" referred to In trie "Consensus" Agreement do not cover "Top-up fees which is penal in character," and which "cannot be given a prior deadline for payment because it is not possible to for esse when a viol at ion would occur" and that therefore the deadline indicated therein is inapplicable leaving the 1st: Respondent to act as tie did". They concluded that there was no use of r e-a 1 looa t :ing the blocks to a party who would under - u t ;1 ise t h e m . T.et us now briefly go over what: the court's powers are as regard:-; judicial review of administrative decisions, It: i.s generally and legally agreed that admi n jst rat ive dec is ion/ac t ions can be reviewed by Courts if they depict illegality, i? rat iojia 7 ity and procedural impropr iety , The reliefs which courts grant are in the form of Certiorari, Mandamus and prohibition ordinarily known as prerogative orders and which are both discretionary and equitable. T h u s , errors of 1 aw; reliance upon erroneous factual co no] us iomh ; absence of any evidence or where the ev.io.enoe gathered cannot: reasonabl y support the finding reached; reliance on irrelevant cons itier at ion i ,e . extraneous ma t i,er s . or oiiti.soi.vjn to rely on re I evarvt mat ter; fetter .ing di screti.cn , that is failure to freely and reasonably exercise the discretion; _i^proper del egat ion of d e o n s io n - malcing; failure to consider facts jo a part icu lar case as opposed to general ity under the disguise of ad hering to particular practice or policy (all the above gen era lly falling under ul tra-v ires pr inci.pl e ); failure to observe the basic principles of natural justice of iaipar t ia 1 ity and f a r r n e s s - f a i 1ure of fair hearing (generally, captured in the hatin inaxiins - Nhhio judex in causa sua and and alteram} ate s 11 has is upon wh ioh tVie count can rely to rev i.ew any admin 1st rat i ve dec is i;")?■( or aotioru As regards the latter principles, bras would he imputed if an interested pa rty has private access to the ad j ad icat o;r or the d ispot e is pr e j edged or a di squa 1.i f i ed person par t i c i p a t e s ; and it will also he held that the compla Inant was gi vhr; no r i gbt i w he heard or ther e was no prooedura 1 fa irness if no not. i ce was js s u e d . Other, instances include where the opposite pa - ty 's c.:a se w a n o i; su f f i.o; ;en 1 1 y availed to the cofnp 1 a inan t ; when oouiplainunt was giver; no opportun ;t y to be heard either ora! !y or by w? '.rtnn onhmi ssioas . depending on the c i roums t ances or w particular case. It will also be held as a viol at ion of the inferred to pr iaoiples if (though there is no general duty to given rsaHiins (unless so prescribed by statute); no reasons are given for the taking of a particular action or making of a parti owl ar dfioisior: as that is generally implied as necessary to enable the person a ‘ "feeted decide on whether or not there was any error, i.e. of law. commi t ted . Also. "Natural justice" would enjoined the Administrative body to act fairly in consonance with legitimate expect ations of the person to be affected by the deoi si o n . While st.il] on this I should hastily point out that in his subii; iss ion , the leaf ned counsel for the Appl leant ably cited and made reference to various relevant authorities (both local and foreign), all substantially elucidating on the principles I have summarised above, He referred to the "amora (1.961} 2 AC I"7; Rv Leigh (1 897) 1 Q R 132; Wedneshury Corporation v. T.,onu ^n. ?» North Western Railway (1.9 0 5 ) AC 426 (on ultra v 5res ) , and Desouza v Tanga Tow;; c o u n c i l (1961) E .A 33” ; Northumberland Compensa t i on Appeals Tribunal (1952) 1 KB 338; Congreve V Heine Office (1 976 ) A .C 692; Pad rleid V Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1 968) AC; Jama Yusuphu V Minister for Home Affairs (1.990) TT..R 30; Donald Kilala V. Mwanza District council (1 973 ) TT.R 192 in which wiseman V Rorneman (1 963 ) 3 AhLER 27 5 was quoted with a p pr ov al , and The book by Prof. H.W.R. Wade entitled "Administrative law; EI.BF. 6th F ,R 1.988, in which is quoted among others, the case of R v university of Cambridge 91723) 1st str, 55 7 . o Now, let i;s subject the f i -iS of the case before us to the re invent: principles of law summa r isen above. Re fore going into othfi; [natter* T should decide on the slat us of the "Consensus Aar eement" bet.ween TAHOA and the Ministry and the Wildlife Depa r fme n t . A copy of this agreement f•:ir part of trie riniift:-;!;r e s r e ] igji upon by the Applicant. It ;$ dated 14.11,94 and was signed,, among oihei'o; by the Minister of Tour ism, Naturu] Resources arid E n.v Iro nme n t , Trie Directoi of Wild life and ;ha chairman TAHOA (trie status of the remaining si gnat;;- y is unclear as the stamp effected is not legible, although o jro urns ta i; ia 1 I y it; could be of the Permanent Secretary). While the Applicant attaches much reliance on this agreement, especially regarding the deadline on which fees had to be p a iu , the Respondents seem to- side! ine if by saying that this appl icat ion has nothing to with that agreement and that in any case the fees stipulated in condition five therein do not Include thetop-up fee. This is vividly asserted in the affidavit of one Ndunguru - paras 4 and 5, in wh ioh if is stated, ariiongothers, " 4 . . .contents of paragrapbs 5 and n of the affidavit is partly irrelevant to the extent that being s member of TAHOA has nothing to do with the; appl ion 1 1on and partly denied to ‘he Hxt-nt that the alleged Consensus Agii-emert of November 1 994 has nothing to do with the application at. hand otherwise the Applicant is p u t to strict proof thereof. 5. Fur tiler the Respondents aver that the issue of "op up charges sre not fee as the Applicant s 1l e g e s ; hut 1 ?e penalties or fines for- uot reaching the ioirrhnuu: hunting rftcu irsiiirV it o f 40's " . The above pieos c.* the oou n t e ru~a f f ida v j { was attacking Applicant's Managing Director's affidavit In par.-; 5 and 6 which •u a au u ud er , "5. That, the Applicant is a mssnher of the i :n u ;>ii: n '■ ' \ r<g \/u h r-;l jw iis s. ■ ;r ;i a ;o ;; (TAHOA) Iha! hr ings together hunt ing uu-upanies and hunters to protect their if a e r'e s r rin;; e rjs ir r e ; ;u ji .s i;iH;;;oe r s c o r;s h r v e and utilise the w i l d .life in a sustainable •manner a'r d as agreed with ‘die gove r n:;;ent. n. That in 'lovfiidc? 1~;14 TAHOA entered into a uonssnsu;- Agrseinen! wit’; the Minister for Tourism, natural Resources arid Envi ronnien t ,-!r;d trie Director of v’il.dl jfe upon wh ioil the go ue rnuuui f pledged that ln te r — a 1 1a payment of all ired fe~s by hunting companies within i he stipulated t imis , which is the 30 th of Apr I 1 ear:’; year ". Reflecting run these a rgu ;;;en ts in relation to the said 1.0 "consensus Ay reeor- nt " , w ; i h rssprCt, t O H r KaOibo . Ren;; or State Attorney. I cannot, go with h 1 in that that Agreeinent is 3 useless piece of doouiiion t on regards fhfi issue at hand and that, the fees stated therein dt; not ‘ i nclude ton-no fees. I vi order to appreciate the lias Is of >ny conclusion one lias to look at the relevant content s of the said agreeinent, Page one arid part- o f p aye two of thy said Ag r semen t p? ov ide . "The Wildlife hunt ino sect .or . is going ;n rnag a -; c.i \a i' . ia ;s or i._rsis rsas neeil c x ace ibu ted by persistent adverse reports in the iiiodia. The reports often ignore the glaring fact ‘"hat hunting operates through a definite set o f rnles and regu 1 a I ions . According to the rules,, hunting is very important, arid basic to conservet \on , It is high t i;ne TAKOA closed ranks with the Ministry and the Wildlife Division in proiiioting high standards of operation. AT,T,nCATTO» AND WITHDRAWAL OF HUNTING BF.QCKB In 1290 the Hoverrirnent niade a commitment in a public anrrounceiiient ’.y Mr Mafern rujmbangu, then Principal Secretary of Ton r i s m t o the e f S'e c h that so long as a trnt jng company observes a giver: set of conditions (which AA j J. follows); the renewal of a ] 1oca t ion of blocks was automatic for a m i n imu in of 5 years. The dor atior of five years is iroper imis . and considered optimal by all or;n Se r va t ion or g a ;oi on t ior s world wide. This period of 5 years a 1 1owo sufficient time to make a return on essentia'' invesf me nts . which ar'e necessary !o; ;;:eet the various obligations hunting companies h.iVH toward the Coun tor y . Besides it g;.vfi? encouragement and latitude ho trie hunting outfitters to prepare a rational hunting plan. If is proved by nxpfiii enoH that the hunt ing outfitter takes better care of its hunting grounds if he is sure to come back to the same area in future. CONDITIONS kKQUTRED BY GOVKFNMKNT 1. An average of 40* utilisation of the e n !'jre quota allocated to the company , This 40" should be related to tire monetary value of the wildlife quota,. and not to the proportion of animals killed. A guaranteed financial minimum return for ait area, whether irik- qw(u a is !iini r’ ■ : non . is yc-ou ^p'p'l Odun - The spirit of conservation must be first, and foremost in th« hunting industry. 2 .Con t ri but e ';• ant i-poach ing act: j v i.t ias .in coope ?.at-ior with tbs Wil.fl.life Division. - ■ >;pe n . ; .ny up or r(Jnun anc a..!rs r.r\ us wn.Loh will continue to be user! by ant: i -poaobi ng squads during tbs bunting off season- The Wildlife Division will also use these f ac i1 i t iss to overssrl^the areas so opened up, 4. Assistance to ooiiiiiiun iI ies adjacent to the n u ii! r;u a re u s . f. Payment of all. required fees within the stipulated time (30 of April), r. . BhjpiiiRnt of the o] i.ent trophies wi thin good ' i;l;e . When these conditions are met , the rrOve.Tnu;e?>t will not withdraw or subdivide allocated blocks, save for" very grave or fundariienta 1 r e aso ns . Fhould there be a dispute between a hunting outfitter r:i",d the Wildlife Division a u t1 o • ii in any vr;a 1t e r r e 1a t in g t o hunting other than the six conditions stated herein, the dispute should be referred to an appeal coom it tee comprising c f trie Mini ster of Tour iSKi. the Principal Decret ary of Tour jsis. th* Dj rector of Wildlife as decision iiiakars . end the Chai rman of T A H O A , or ; in hi s sbseiire ;v .I*•~ r D] r fii’to? of the board ot TAHOA in an advisory capacity,” (emphasis mine ) On pays n of tbs sar-ia a yree siient., there is yet t he following; " AT.T.OCATTOT-I OF TVT.QOKS will be a matter co noer n ing r;;a in 1 y new companies, since sr; old operating company which observes all the six requisite corol i t ion* w i1 1 keep the ir hi ooks , wh ioh is josh . Allocation of V>locks should be publicly avai labia .'"rom Wildl ife offices. For viable management of a hunting company, a ;;;;;;iiiii:ii; of 5 hunt], ng blocks is necessary. The blocks a 1 1ocat ion letter from the Wildlife Division will be considered a legal con trd c; ." (eiiiphas Is mine) f Ooina f h x on oil these e-ioeufs auoted above Mr K a m b a . Senior "hate A At t o r n e y 's o e j s h ;vat ion which tend to brand this agreement as irrelevant cannot lie accepted. It clearly copies out as a polio document, which among others, guides and oontrolls hunting' act ;v;ties in Tanzania and on which both the hunters (including the App 1 "tca n t } and the government rely. M; Rumba is not 14 suggesting that: government o f f i c i a l s anu more specif j call y , government Mlriistsrs would go along signing documents in the name of gover t , pu/porting to pronounce gove rnment directives, policies,. undertakings and com,mi 1:ment just as a show - off or for no official purpose and use at aid save as a mere joke! T shudder to think of any government acting thus and more so of a respected government, both na t.i ona 1 1 y and internationally, like I ri 'l'Arl i] ■ . ri . F'r o i;i t h i s "Hs lis^nsus reHinHnt.M T f u r t h e r hold that hi . mti . ng licence holders are required to pay their fees by 30th Apri 1 each year a;;d that ;mce one complies with the six conditions outlined, the government would not "wi thdraw or SiibdivIdH allocated blocks, nave for very grave or_fundamental r e asons" (emphasis mine) What about tbs 1n !'erPr ehati on of the term "fees"? In the snn;e vsi r:, whatever restriction on int.er pret at ion that maybe attached in the word "fees", I have failed to strike the basis of Mr Kamba's and Ndungura's d i f f e ren t ia 1.ion put on "top-up fees" and any other "ffins". It is not of i ns ign i f ica nee that both Mr K a i'nbri Miid Mr "dunguru however much they : : to run away from hi;e "ffiss" they constantly, in the submission and affidavit, still trail what is required to be paid in order' to reach t he 40 ‘1 of utility of the quota to a particular block, a "top-up fee"' A term "fee" in the Rlacks I.aw Dictionary, 6th Edition, is defined, a m o n g o tf;e s , as, "A charge fixed by ln»v fo? services of public off icars or for use of a privilege under eonf.rol of govHrrnnsni:. . . A recompense for an official Or professional setvice or charge --;t umer t or compc n cat ion for a part icn 1a r a c t_oc serv ice . A fixed charge or. perquisite charge r a recompense for labour; reward, coiiipe j'isa t .1on , or' wage g i.vsi; 1;.o a person for performance of service or something done or io be d. : (emphasis mine} Does the above definition exclude the 'top-up fee' under discussion? I r< jny co n s iclel ed view the answer is in the negative, I ran satisfied that the "top-up fee" falls squarely under the "fees" referred to under condition five of the "Consensus Ayr semen i ". That settled let us now turn to whether the 1st and 2nd Respondent:-;’ action violated any of the enumerated principles as alleged by the A pp ll ean t. Raving carefully considered the contents of the various eommu re; oa t. ioris between the parties, the 'Consensus Agreeuieut, a r gui/ie n t s of the opposing parties, and the law, I am satisfied that when the. 1st Respondent fixed the deadline on which the Applrcanl. was required to pay the top-up fee to 27th,. and then 22th April. 1222. be acted unilaterally and arbitrary, for', the Set date of 3 0 ih A p i i l . had not been officially varied; he acted u;c easonabl y , for , lie could not issue a demand on a non-working cate, execute it on Applicant again on a non - w o t . k ing date and at his residence us if there was an emergency, let along refuse to aoi'iKpi paymenf of fftfi.i a day {29/4/98) before the official dftKiiline, 7b,; i apart;, the Applicant was afforded no chance to o h fend his pi ig’ n t . and no reasons were advanced for the withdrawal of the 2 bunting blocks, I have also found that; the 2nd Respondent' acted on false n forma f jon and insuf f m i ent evidence when d isiftiss ing the A pp li can t’s appeal to her. I will endeavor herehelow to demonst ra tn how and why T have arrived at: f V;e s a id c f'•n o:1n s io n s . Although Hr Kamba, "en ior State Attorney, insists that the Respondent gave Applicant enough notice, invoice and reminders against which adama.no/ to pay the top-up of the 40% under - u t i1 i ?.a t ion of the quota went on to be displayed by Applicant until the 28/4/92 when the decision to withdraw the two blocks was made,, and therefore justified, this argument suffers from various shor1 -oomings as I will shortly dem on str at e. TVie Respondent's letter’ dated f,/4/9 8. simply informs trie Applicant as follows, "We wish to inform you that your firm lias hunted below' 40" of the quota given for the under listed bunting blocks; 1. Muhuwesi Game Reserve (14s) 2, K ; Igo Gume Reserve (C) (33%) 2. Kir. igo Game Reserve (K) (16%) Consequent 1 y ; your required to top up the difference before 19th of April. 1998. or h e ?w •;s k ;h s said Block(s) shall be wi t M r : a w n from your ;:sfi a n d possession wi inoiii: further notice. Mahula Miaungwi for DIRECTOR OF WTLPT,T F R " Or; the face of it therefore this would be taken to be enough, not ice whereby fail nr e to pay a top up fee the Applicant v/ould have benn liable to forfeit the three blocks (this is assujiiing the 30 Mi Apr j 1 deadline did not exist). Before the "deadline" (10/4/00), however on 0/4/08, the Applicant successfully challenges the percentages refer red to by Respondent;. The said let tel. iii part reads, "After your hunting deportment in A r u s h a checked the figures again the figures cause f lOiil Muhesi fasne R e s e r v e { yo u r leftei1 4 5 ) now 2 2 , 5 % K i s ig o Game R e s e r v e (C ) 3 0 % ^ now 4 9 .% K;sigo Gasne Reserve (E) 1 now 2 3 % We wish to retain th isi’Jbl oiks and we hope the department: v / i l l assist us in ; ,■c k 1 i •c the problem^. (Ree our letter:'-; of 0 0 ’h of October arid If-;" of November --- enclosed), also see your letter of Monday the nth of April froifi youi Antipoaching dept. Where we agree t:o pay for trie build ilia of a pKtmanent k k I.t ]ement for 5 people to be build between the V i ] 1duft and the Rsssr v h a no not ’raving them si ay 110 km away at Manioni, To rcoons ide r i1;h full payment of the missing li T wowld 1 ik b to draw your at t on t ion to the 2 enclosed 1si tor s .... then pi s. let me know w h a t yon you 1d_r:ons.i der a fn ir % that T shun 1d pay to yoni department . Wh ]ob we will do then r icbt a w a y , after your reply. Thanking you for your understanding and con a id h ra t ion Wengert - Windrose - " a ? f Fran?: T We rg erf " (emphas is mine, but the phraseology and wording remains as presented by the h •u ) What do w h gather from this letter? The percentages are disputed, and there is clear evidence that trie so called Mtop-up fee" is not certain. T f trie latter' we r e different there would be no point of Applicant' including in his letter the last 77 (twenty seven) words. That aside h o we ve r ; the Respondents proceed to concede nr tors on per oen tages revea led in their earlier ooinmun ;cat ion dated r./4/9R which Mr Kamba brands as enough notice. They do this on 75/4/98 ( a non-working day) where a letter bearing trie fol 1owi ng is writteru ''k KF: UNDKF UTILI Z A T I O N : Please refer to your- letter dated 9th April, 1 998 on the issue of under - u t i ] I ?,n t ion . Wh are w r i t i n g to inform you ;bn! . this office ric'inowlsflges the changes indicated in your letter on performance utilisation 7 ;q n re h as in i(ivvs : . r; ii T :H S . 1 ■ ,t<im e ft H H H r V f- /.J r> 7. Kizi go Game Reserve (C) 49%) 3. K i y, igo Game Reserve (E) t have therefore been instructed to inform you that you should make a top-up to 40% for the two unde? ■-ut i 1 i?:ed blocks (Muhesi Game Reserve and K|>: ::ioo Game Reserve (E) as indicated above) by 0 7 tb Apr il . 1 998. Please cont ac t A rusha office to this effect. You rs s i rmerel y , . Mabula Misungwi for DIRECTOR OF WJI,DT,IFE" Aga u i w h a t do we find in ibis? Percentage errors are conceded r;nd rectified accordingly and the deadline earlier set on 10/4/98 is changed to 27th, However, one fundamental question raised by A p p l i c a n t r e g a r d i n g how much should be paid is not touched (let us assume that, the advice contained therein that he should contact Arusha office is aimed at this although If everything was certain one wonders why was trie figure not oa tegor ica 1.1 y stated}. Be that as it may, ca n Mr Kamba, SSA , frill! maintain t.>ja ;- up ro than (25/4/98) the not ire given on 74/98 was St.I 11 valid, with all those variations? My considered view is that, j f it was ever one the validity had already been spent; and vacated as the letter of 25/4/98 exemplified. As if failure to correctly respond to Appl i .cant's letter of 9/4/98 was not enough, arid ns ;niicn as ihH latest letter was written on a non-working day. the deadline .M; was a non-working day (27/4/98) ! Suffice to observe nere i di. this can he equated to a legend . told In many commun i t i.es, in vvl;i oh it is said that a chief not wish;, j his daughter to bn marr ;ed ho a ce'r fain suitor, srt two impose ible condi tions - the su itor iins requ ired _ 1 rs order to qualify as a husband to the ',n :-sy s. o riiiyn i r , r}rin , io i' ;e a r* cur r r;r;> p j.e o e s , a ro c k vv. ;; rio u r blunting the sharpness of the axe made of T r o n , arid, two, draw water using a gou^/rd made of net! Back to our case, now did the 1st Respondent expert Applleant to effect payment on a non- working day? Without, drawing uncalled for inferences, what emergency was there for the 1st Respondent to have acted in that rushy manner and speed? We are even told that the letter was faxed to Arusha, aru an order, made by the 1st Respondent directing that Applicant be served on that same non-working day and at his home! Mnkeni's affidavit is clear' on this, "4.Thai on 27th April, 1998 was a pub!ie holiday, biit as stated in paragraph 2 above, I was r n iiiy office working. Tn the course of <-nr\ and grarii.s;: to -mot h n r snr 1oos h u n t e r . fl T should pose hero and obs^rvH that wh i1e it .is a very wel > known fact 0 !in c O H r n s n d a o I e f o r that o t 1' e r , f o a l liiosr o r r i c in i s ; both in g o v - ;■•••;;- s : . p a r o s t a t a 1 ar:u privats offices work on hoi 1d a y s .i s d weekrO;ds t c; c l e a r Op s s o k -dog I S o n f t s ; t. h ; s oriuiijf; n '.! he dor; s ove> -7a a 1oas ns a 1 y v;l : h ooopl ete ohli vron of pro's., i C c Osd O T O ;' S d O r S . -Vi S S VO--"! 1 1 n t H To 1 s r;e d ''id h r n f i d ri O *. S i‘ i,H v d '■a w .-s'! *./^ r‘ ss : r; f S v • S s s S . As •s why pav;nsn't w o not ;;irid e os 2S*ch, tbs A p p l scant !s vsrsios ;s "hoi" ~ -: :t p r o c e s s e s oorncenoed on 2^so a working d ay. y;o U 1 d h a v e dikPT: 74 hours os "1:0 1 : s ,-d:•; R r a n o h had t.O c o n t a c t s a r :• dss-oor: ■ r c ' c i : st^ o r t h e other hand, t*rksrri as pea? p a r a 7 /of' V:i s a f f i d a v it ,s.- ys that Appl i s a n t asked for 291 h without g i v i n s' i :•a so a s 1 T ns o oh s it n a t i o o . is it possible fo r th e A p p I ioo st h a v i n g f a il e d •::• P ^ Y / bo have simply requested for axt'.sn a ir i l l dstli without giving any reason at ad .1 ? T very ooch deads; this vSiOjo'ro as: much as T doubt para 3 of the same A f f1d aV ; o he- • s the sains s f f ;s S -S t s t ' a S : - - T a t T p o r s :"0';o 1 1 y know the applicant, and so:s-- of 1e r w o r k e r s , and on IRth April . I :s s o o d a;; T'nvojf^ to the spplioant to pay the not yet paid Topnp oharged/fees for two hiinting Jdrs'd<s that is, Hs l i e s i . Clause FHserve and TTi z i g o Rast hu. n t i n g hi o o k for the Applicant failed to utilise to at least ;;d n ; ;;-os o f 40?; the applicant never complied o‘ o J wi t'.h f ! o p y o' " thesame is att a-heu herein as a n n e x t : \\ra D* 11 I o;;iib1: the COT r r of 1" h 5s p o r n because of four ■f hof.OT 8 “ i r i tol e hd hs ‘ shund rin i nv o j oe why I s be a i Tent r e g a r d i ng f'.O *vhOn"i t Wds banded ; dnd nK/ f e SO whe n he WOO I fi SpOUd ICO to no s f f ' d ri v i ; wb i '' b d i s pot' e s b v { r"; y r e Oa '; v a e a ny t b .i r; g 7 ; kn t V*a t ) . SHOOOdly, as sOliTuI ; y f : es i sd b y I bn A p p ] i \':ri T'^. , thei n v o i c e jS ;m] ■oated 1 o ha v a been ’^sund on 1.3/4/OP? and not 1P/4/0R os 0 1 a road . Thirdly, the said i.nvoioe ;u'ulioafas t o haVft been issued }v Sir;k H f S S SSpp{; Tt SO O V 1}S j “<S . O f S jS S I f idd V,j. ! . , tJi.ii. t ‘!H SH!|ir ;n vo t ■e ^ s s iin'tino it. is a tone copy of folio 137 i.no ica ted the reon pi s ;-;r it "Attention Mr Mkani . - if be ( M n k e n i ) is 1b r ri utboi ' bow was he ay win bringing its contents to the sti ertion of h ifns a 1 f? hastlyp if indeed it was issued, could the lett nr ivr.it ten on 25/4/08 responding to Applica nt 's letter dated 0/4/0P, wh^oh Tetter was inquiring as to bow much was supposed to be pa id b e s iTnnf' or; t h ]s very central issue? With all the wbsvs, the versioo as explained by Eddy Mosho 1r her affidavit rei;;a ins none pi aos ibl e . In h e r a f f i davi t. . /ariong others she Si ri t.HO . That , on t h e noarovlng o f sPt); April, 100P, T v;s;; asked by Mr Frano vvenge rt to go and talk to Mr Ha;-sanj Mnkend. of td)H vvildli.fe Depax tn;sat alosit the payiiierU; of the top-up fees no the ;.s;de ?O ■ ;li led two blocks i.e., ;vn;eesi f.-jH imh Reserve and K ; s i go Haiie Rese;rve OA )Tn \ 3. That , wh e n T met Mr Mnkeni that morning T nHrCRii h iii: to g i vh oh the breakdown of the top Op fees that the A p p l t o o TOi' IS s i ; pp n; ? e n to pay 00 that. T shod d • ash to t* h e Rank and o b t a .1n the Rank ’I r a ft:-, and p^ay them that day- Mo Rassani M-'tken i gave oh t i n- aa i d IvreakuO^n where upon T went to the NRC! U h a r u Road 1 % " r? i"j\ I■ H *'i e ri S K H 0 i jiHiii i w 1 S S V sH H •: K t./ T o \£H .< T{ f hvOU r Or the first Hnspi': nde n t' amount 1 ng to $21 .0 OR orly to be told that the an amount of more than cpn^OOO needs to get an oka y from t he T’ JP,r H e a d q u a r t e r s in Da r ea Salaamo In add it ior; . ■'.hey said t hat *h Is might take /4 hnnrs or more and they p r o m is ed m e d o e to my a ;annoy pleading. \ hat; they would try to ex p ed it e the p ro ce ss to the foil.owing day I.e. 29th April 1.998, 4 . Up o n t eoei v i ag tin a i a f o r mod i on T went bank to the Applicant.':-; office and i n f o r med Mr W e n y e r t. *.h i a i n f o r ma t i on who i mmed l a t e l y sent mr Dav ' d M a s a mb i to go to the Game Re p a r t.mnnt n f f i oh to relay thi a i n f o rma r i on !;o Mr Hasxan'i Mnkeni and ask h i in t o accept ths p:-a y ; n H T i i n form of the Rank Dr a f t ' trie f o l 1 ov/ i ng da y . 0 1 c 5. While M " David Manainh] was a ri.il ir Mr Mnkeni 'a office Vie called xne by way of :n b p n o n e nnd told n;e that the Gar;e Department -in Arusha have received i n a ■r act ior;a fram t"be D irector o f Wildlife no' t.c e acf 1vf the payment fro <n the App ].ic a a t tbe fo 1 1own nu day and that the Applicant' a ban! d e f fare; 1'he sa id pay :nenf 1"bat' day an] y , T w iall . M; k rh fo ra , to a 1 n t.a 1"h n t wh a t la stated in paragrapha 7 of Mr M n k e n i ‘a Affidavit is not true a a T went to hi a office in the corning and not. the afternoon and the ana who w e n ’' to hi a office in the afirernoon ia M: David Maaasnbi . Otherwise Mr Mnkeni ia put into strictest proof thereof. 6, That up o n receiving this I n f or iaa t Ion I told no ?>, ;h> Mi Wengert who instructed me to call tho Hi r e c t o r - of Wildlife in Dar ea Ra ! a u; n and explain t.ha c i r c u w s t a n c e a t hat , have made the payrnerrt of the. said top-up fees that day to become im possible, 7, That 7 inoied i at.e 1y called Mr Dakar 1 M b a n o / trio Wil dl i ra Director. and explained the r e a a o n a tb a t ha a njad e the Appl ic a n t f a id t o effect, the payment on that day only to be trod by b ;o that v;h should borrow some wh e ra . I "old that is(?) impossible to obtain SUCh amount of money at: t h a t time, and besides it will ]j h u n p r o o e d u r a 1 to pay in cash since tbe required tkhs are only paid in Bank Drafts which as explained above could not be obtained that d ay. I once again pleaded to him to let us pay him at 0,00 a .m the fol 1 o w ing day i .h . 2 9 t h April 1 9 On the rHquHst trial was adamantly refused by him. . ; ■'■■■ ; i yv‘ H n i o ri i o aa K na " p H r nap'S i_T "!H doesn't- believe my explanation he should talk 'O my boss who was ar’O U n d during that uOnvf-r sat i ">n blit h e refused arid s a i d t hat in Riswahi. 1 i "R i 1 a Mt.u A b a b a Msalaba Wake", Wild; r H s p s c t . the above does not. o n l y indicate th e u n ;H o s o n a b l e n e s s of the refusal to accept the top-up fee but also Creates doubts -which iiiay l e a d one to believe (though possibly mistakenly) that, the decision had already been reached that, whatever a reason should be witch hunted for withdrawal of the two hunting blocks! Tt is no wonderas per the affidavit of the Managing Direc to r ; that when he contacted Mr T.uhanjo, the Permanent Secretary of that Ministry who happened to be in Arusha at the material, time and informed him of the c o n d i t. i.ona 1 i t i.es aft.ached he brushed everything aside as a i o k e ; ( f or . i n d e e d in all fairness, that, s h o w they shiHia d Vie t e r m e d ) and proceeded to advise him to pay th« day following,, 29/4/98, However,. what seemed to be a joke turned out to be real for the Applicant was never allowed to pay! Now, this drama did irot end there: On 3 5/5/98 the 1st: Respondent proceeded to issue a letter allocating only three blocks (impliedly withdrawing the other two) in a language pregnant wit.]'; praises. The body of the letter' reads,. "RK: APPROVAL FOR CONTINUAL IIBE OF BLOCKS FOR THE YEAR(JULY - D E C E M B E R ) 1990 Having cxarmned your good performance and r o t in Q_th a t you had paid all government dues, we have approved tire use of the under!isted blocks by your company for the year 1998, 1 . T,ake Natron Game con trolled Area (N) ?.. Moyowosi Game Reserve (?) 3, Kj xigo Game Reserve (C) We wish you a nice hunting s e a s o n . Yours sincerely,. Mabula Misungwi. for D1FECTOF OF W I L D L I F E " ?emphasi s mine) One would have nxpectsd the 1st Respondent to indicate in this very letter a f?. ct that the two other' hunting blocks, have been withdrawn, and reasons thereof and this should have been s considering what is ronta rued on page ?, of the 11Cons ensue «Qr r-e]ii«nt" which rear.ires minimum blocks in order to have viabl m a n a g e m H n t o f a h u n t i n g c o m p a n y . T h e l e t t e r , h o w e v e r , i s c o u c h e d i n s u c h w a y t h a t i n t h e e y e s o f a n y o n e w h o k n e w n o t h i n g o f t h e c o n f l i c t s i m m e r i n g b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s c o u l d o n l y g i v e c r e d i t a n d c o n g r a t u l a t i o n s t o A p p l i c a n t f o r a s u c c e s s f u l a n d c o m m e n d a b l e j o b w h i c h m a n a g e d t o s e e n " e t h e D i r e c t o r 1 o f W i l d l i f e ' s p r a i s e s f o r g o o d p e r f o r m a - n e e ' T h e s h o r t f a l l i n t h i s a d m i n . ! s t r a t i v e a c t . i o n n e n d s n o e i :i p 1 ; a s i s ! n e v e r t h e l e s s ; t h e A p p l i c a n t w a s n o t c o w e d d o w n b y t h i s s e t b a c k . H e l o d g e d h i s c o m p l a i n t t o t h e M i n i s t e r i n a l e t t e r w h i c h r u n s a s f o l l o w s : "Dear Konarible Minister Meghji, M y n a m e i s F r a n z J , W e n g e r t o f W e n g e r t - W i n d r o s e - S a f a r i . W e h a v e b e e n i n T a n z a n i a h u n t i n g s i n c e 1 . 9 8 2 ' W e j u s t h a p p e n t o h a v e l o s t 2, o f o u r b l o c k s i n a v e r y u n f a i r a n d i n j u s t w a y T d o n o t w a n t t o b e t o l d a t a l a t e r s t a g e , t h a t I h a v e c a u s e d a l l t h i s l e g a l p r o b l e m s e t c . , w i t h o u t h a v i n g c o n s u l t e d t h e M i n i s t e r a n d t o g e t a r e p l y f r o m y o u ! M r H a r r i s o n M w r d i y e m h e ( m y L a w y e r a n d k n o w n t o y o u ) t o l d e t h a t t h i s w i l l b e a v e r y e m b a r r a s s i n g c a s e f o r t h e M i n i s t r y ! T w a n t t o a v o i d f l a t ! C'sj '. i c a n rot. oocepi i rse v-/ay ■■-1j b o w i nac 29 lost- those blocks, You mi ght. also not have Isnfifi told U ] thf i i fUO'tS 11V VOUi Griii'ifi d e p a r t i nert ! please give ins a few nnnutcs and a decision on your side! You;, s since] ei.y Frans J. Wengert Wengert - Windrose - Safari” This attracted the M i n i s t e r ' s response to the following e f fe o t . "RE: APPKAT, AGAINST A L L O C A T I O N OF HUNTING BLOCKS I wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 19th May, 1 9 9 8 , regarding the above subject. In your letter you infor.med. me that you had los'~ two hunting blocks in a very unfair and unjust way. T have read your- correspondences with great care, and s'1so consulted the Pi rector of Wi 1 d 1.i.fe in _order to get facts front both s ides , The information I nave gat hered about this issue is as follows: 1.) The Director informed you to pay the top up through his letter Ref. No G D / T ,80/81/89 dated 6 April 1998, 7} Your office representatiVe Mrs E. Moshi phoned the offi c h of the Director of Wildlrfe t ellI n g th e rr t Via t t h e u t.i 1 1s a t i o n p e r o e n t a ge s shown in tin-1 ahovn inentioriHn letter d].u not fa 1 ly v/i th you r record , The response from the D irector of Wild':) fe was that, you shout,; go to Tourist Hunting Office in. A; 'Tsha and reconcile your records and ef-jh-^t the ?;equ ired pa y ;u h nt . This whs o o r f i rn)^- by your let ter dated 9/4/98, How-^er this letter; was received in th ■ o f f i c e of D I • r C; : o of W M d 1 1. f e Or; >.:/4/l 998. Thereafter, the tourist hunting offioe in Arusha issued you an Invoice N, G D /AR /T H /16V T 11/387 dated 18th April, 1 998, However, you did not effect the payment desp x t h continued efforts of rerriindinc you by the staff of Wi Idlife Division in Arusha. The Pi. r e c t o r 1s letter dated 25th April , 1 9 98 and faxed to yon on ?7th A p r i l , _1 9 9 8 w a s ma d e P r i o r__t o t he t e l ephone cal l to yonr house . a n f o r t u na t e l y y o n r e f u s e d__t o __r e o e I v e t he fax and demanded i t __t o he raxed t o__y o u r o f f i c e . __ Your r e f u sal No r e o e i ye t he fax t h r o ngl i your hoine Facsirn It- c a u s ed the_ del ay Rrinf-d or; the i.0f t io n available and. evidence availed to me, I have no alternative ot.her than agreeing to the decision made earli er . Having said this. I hope you wid I show the best v i.g.i l a n c e with your r Sn'ia i n i n g three hunting blocks and T wash you aid trie beet j.n the nHX!.. hunting reason - Thaok yon Sakia Haindani. Meghii (HP) MTN Ir TF H FOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND T O U R I S M '' f■■;ip n a s ix •'.in e } The M Ln in ter 's let her seems t o brush aside 'the Appl j oa n t; 1 a o o ;;;p 1 a iu f s as meoiidess. The learned Senior State Attorney suho its that reasons contained in this letter "are reasonable to tdie extnnt that they ire based on official cor re spondences and docunienta available at the phi.nl.stry" * Wi Ih r e s p e c t , this is ion :u rp o rt a h 1h . F i r s 1 1 even if it was t r \ie t h a t the Mi. n is t e r based h \ s cone] us ione on " reoords and nor t espondences ova i 1 able at the M in.i stry" / i f t he 1 attar are found to lie false and untrue the ot herwise reasonah leness of t he decj si.on becomes un.r easofiabl e , Torn we are no I looking at what the Minister hel ;;eved h \\t, ;■■a th e ; on wha t t.ransp 1.r e<1 a.nd wh ich is .in. acf.ua 1 corf -ontafion -rid h thn Appl ioanf os j.nt erests r SKCondly, the background and evidence we have already gone t hr ougVi leaves no ore 1 r; doubt that; the Minister acted or was fed with wrong in fo rma t io n , and 1 Iso cl I1ed to consider or was not advised as regards therrelevant con s ido ?a f jon 3 , 7 ,e , the ''Consensus Agreement" o.f whi oh she is a signatory, and on which she ia completely silent in her let ter; , Further^th^ Minister's letter. shows t:hat sire took "great care" to analyse the Applicant's complaint basing on an advice by the 'fit C-sponde a4-, tho "h? y person who a 1'', along se"' into motion not ions co; np 1a 1 a ed of' jt hard therefore to find why she v/as 00 s l e d ’ Had she giver: Applicant chance of being heard, poss ;hi y in the presence of 1st Respondent, it is no wonder she wools have r.*soh:-d a d';fferer;t conclusion T;n for t ana t e 1 y she did not- she decided to hel ieye and be guided by the word of only one o r the part ins to a r o r f 1 j rt ! As a result; she flops into unsispported conclusions as reflected in paragraphs (from top) 4, f, n, ", 7 which are not supported hy any written correspondence apart from being contradicted by her officer's affidavits. Criff ice to say that r have already demonstrated that there is no evidence to estate is! that an invoice was issued at a l l . Res'! decs, the evidence of her Came warden, Mnkeni , stati oned at Asusho, as per his affidavit, contradicts the allegations (strongly denied by Applicant-) that Applicant refused to receive a fasmile message of /fth at his home The applicant's Managing Djr'Hctor disputes having fasmile facilities at his home and his assertion r e m a 1 ned an s'mken throughout. If it ever exited, then, •**>r\ t he Respondents would have rsaui ly provided it s number and the (.■n h ;v' s 7 iv £o : ;-11;i ■ri iiiessage w : :ic -i^ saoc^es- i:■ a r <* ■ '>r- h iiie wrj rohm !s i ;ei i. iir■ i ‘';- s riv e y j nu 1 jirit ri7 re I. :eoe i-v {.11~_j the fa>; iiieflsacH ( the contents of the ] f.tt.er dated 25/4/98) and inet r not ione he telephoned Applicant's Managing Hi rector who went to hjo ,h f ire and collected the message! Common sense, clothed 'with inode r p, i‘ y , would wonder whether one would prefer to move fron; one piece to another, to physically receive a message or just r eon in seated at his home and receive the same. From what have been discussed, it stands out clearly that the 1st Respondent abused his powers b y ’o n i 1aterally and arbitrarily setting the deadline for- payment of necessary fees to 27th and the 23th April, 1998 contrary to the already set date of 30/4/98 as per ’T o n s e n s n s Agr eement ” . He further abused his powers by refusing payment of the top nip fee on 29/4/98. and t-nis was unreaeonahl e , first, eons ider i ng the fact that it was a day before striking th?: deadline, and secondly, even if it was oilersiSH . refusing payment when ther e was a sound and j ust r f iab! e reason for delay, T cor; cede that failure to pay top- up fees on the stipulated date (30/4/98) could he a basis for withdrawal of hunting licences on hunting blocks, and for that matter, notice may no" be necessary, for, the Applicant, would have known the deadline - the requIrement for payment of top - up fees and consequence rcir failure. But, where the authority that may be, makes it mipor-sihle for'- the per son statutorily required to pay fees to p ay i t within the st ipn 7a t e d t i - ae he canno t, be oondesanHd to have failed to pay the same and can’ t be cond.eam ed to s n f f--:c the consequences for Use fa i l u r e , The j st Respondent the Director' of W ild life , for reasons best known to himself decided to s e t ’, a deadline of his own . which drolsio.n barred Appl j can t f rom pa y i ng t ’re r equ i re d top up fee w 1 1h i n t h e o f f ic ial i ja w e ; a n n i.riH ? r i o r n a a s s u n s e c j n . H n i h o l s r n a a r n s t e . p p . i i. i ' d ri i, s in terests alleged ly for1 fa ilu r e to pay the fees were w ithout any colour o r le g a lity r.nd cun only be hut a nullity for being a S i H ri i ri u ; iS H •'■! : i -S L. * j WS S , Tj S 1 d H H - Its e ISt R HrS p (' fJO H ;i ! S decision and actions of 25th. 27th and 28th April,. 1.998 ex hi b it hasty elements akin ■ :o those of ajf ive~ br i g a d e in action,, which however good intentisned they neigh t ha ve b een can no t escape being branded {unreasonable let a lo ne fa il in g b e i n g saved froni an in'ipnt at ion of bias. Last 1 y , wh i 1 e the Appl icant was ent 1 1 1 ed to be told reasons for; the wi th dr aw al of the two h u n t i n g bl o c k s (which the l.st R e s p o n d e n t never bothered to give) the r e a s o n s in d i c a t e d - •n the 2nd R e s p o n d e n t ' s letter1 r e s p o n d i n g to A p p l i c a n t *s coroplaintw- are not reas on s legal ly r e c o g n i s a b l e as t tw-'V w er e b as ed on false reports; on explanation of one p ar ty (ast R e s p o n d e n t ) who was in an y case in te re st ed in the issue as a vvhole as bn v,/as -he key pla yer 1 in the a c t i o n s complained agai ns t and o/ni t ted corns i de r Ing one vi tal ev jde nc e . t he ’-Consensus H ... .................... . i_ IV e a r• :-•e i;;e r>r I