20000223 TZHC Dar es Salaam

J., 1 TN 'J'HR HTGH COURT OF 'i'ANJ,ANIA AT DAR RS SALAAM crvn. CASR iiO. 1 6P. Of. l 9(/7 AKBRR MERAtJ AtJBRAJ ... PLAINTIFF VERSUS nEFF.rmANT RUT,JNG MSUMJ. ~TK: On 6/3/97 this court recorded consent judgment for shs.50,000,000/= in favour of the appli~ant against the respondent. Among other matters, appljcant acknowledged 11nder · the said judgment that out of the decretaJ. amount of the . ' shs.50,000,000/= he had already been paid shs.18,000,000/=. On t.he other band respondents unde:rtook to pay t:he bala.nce of shs.~2,000,000;= in five monthly i.nstallments between February 1997 ancl June 1997. 1'he applicant contends ,trJl:it up to l 7 /6/99 when appJj.cation for execution was filed respondent had on].y paid ... ,.' sbs.22,000,000/=. 'l'he e:xec11tion is Jherf:!f ore for the balance of shs.20,000,000;= . In terms of Order 21 rule 20 of the Civil ... P:roc:edure Code not\ce was issued :requiring the ri:~spondent to show cause why execuU on orde:r. sbould not he j_ssued. In response to the said notice, respondent contends that he :had already paid th.e whole (lecret.al arnount as sttpulated in the consent judgment; For this he is relying on the promissory note of shs.!)0,000,000/= ; • i elated 6/-6/96. With :respect this prornj_ssory .. /', - ' t:. " ,:,.' note is not val.id. As noted earlier, it was issued before the consent j11dgment was recorded. Whether the said promissory note was honoured or not, it is a fact that on 6/3/97 when the consent judgment was recorded, respondent still owed the applicant shs.50,000,000/= less shs.18,000,000/= which applicant acknowledged to have received previously. So under the judgment, respondent was to pay the applicant shs.42,000,000/=. Out of thiR amount, respondent has to<late;paid shs.22,000,000/= in dj_fferent instr:d.lments th:r-ough Crown Bureau de Change,. M/S Mohamed enterpriRes and shs.2,000,000/= paid by himself. The claim by the respondAnt that he gav? the appli.cAnt i:;orne promisRory notes for £1111 payment of the decretal amount 1s unfounded. There is no evidence to. sttl)stantiate it. The only promissory note is the one issued prior to the consent judgment. In conclusion, I am convinced that no sufficient ground has been adv;,nced by the respondent to show cause why execution shouJ.d not be ordered. Accordingly ~xecution to proceed as p:rayed. ,J.A,1I KIONGOZT. ?.3/2/2000 For the applicant: J{j_J. j ndu. Fo:r the respondent: KiJj_:nd11/Kesarj_a.