charles christopher humfrey kombe vs kinondoni municipal council 2020 tzhclandd 3840 19 october 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION) AT DAR ES SALAAM LAND CASE NO. 107 OF 2007 CHARLES CHRISTOPHER HUMFREY KOMBE PLAINTIFF VERSUS KINODONI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL DEFENDANT JUDGMENT MGETTA,J: In their judgment handed down on 12"^ June, 2020, their Lordships Hon. A.G.Mwarija, Hon. J.C.M Mwambegeie, and Hon. R.J. Kerefu, JJJA, directed and ordered the records to be returned to me in order to compose a fresh judgment after hearing the parties on the issue of whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the matter or not that I raised suo motu and proceeded to determine it without requiring them to address me first. As it appears on record, the piaintiff one Charles Christopher Humfrey Kombe, sometimes in 1993, has sought permit from the defendant, Kinondoni Municipal Council to use for unspecified period a water logged open space at Msasani Shamba along old Bagamoyo Road (henceforth the land) for building materiai business. Upon being permitted and licensed, he made that iand suitable for business by fiiling in and leveling sands, erecting staii, constructing stores and putting containers for purposes of conducting business. In the year 1999, at the instance of certain business quarters and adversaries, the defendant commenced criminai proceedings against him in criminai case No. 2310 of 1999 at the Resident Magistrate's Court of Dar es Saiaam at Sokoine Drive (henceforth sokoine drive court), accusing him of erecting staii and conducting business thereon without a valid permit. In addition, some of his items were seized from the iand without notice by the defendant to unknown places. Upon completion of triai, on 17'^ December, 2004 sokoine drive court found him not guiity and accordingly acquitted him. It was further ordered that his seized items be returned back to him. Despite that order and his several demands, the defendant did not return them. Hence, on 10"^ May, 2007, the piaintiff instituted this suit claiming, inter alia for Tzs 1,293,343,800/= being the value of the seized items which inciude the containers of cement bags, spares parts, cashbox, furniture, business records and documents and more other items. I heard testimonies of both parties and in composing the judgment, I thought, I had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the matter on account that the subject matter of the suit was not a land matter, but rather a normal suit for recovery of seized items or payment of compensation in the alternative. On 5"^ June, 2015,1 therefore dismissed the suit without order for costs. Aggrieved by the judgment, the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal where he raised three grounds of complaint; one being that the trial court erred in law in failing to accord the parties a right to be heard after It had rightly framed the issue, that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Upon considering that ground of complaint, their Lordships found that it was an error for not according the parties the right to be heard on the Issue raised suo motu. When the record was returned to me from the Court of Appeal, I compiled with their Lordships' direction by according the parties the right to be heard. Their respective learned counsel filed written submissions on that issue of jurisdiction. In his submission, Mr. Julius Kalolo Bundula, the learned advocate for the plaintiff started by explaining to me that this matter falls under the ambit of disposition. He therefore referred me to the piaint which expiains how the piaintiff was granted permit by the defendant to use the land; and, how he was affected when his items were forcefuliy removed by the defendant from that iand. He aiso referred me to section 2 of the Land Act, 1999 (henceforth Cap 113) which defines disposition as hereunder quoted: "disposition" means any saie, mortgage, transfer, grant, partition, exchange, iease, assignment, surrender, or disciaimer and inciudes the disciaimer and inciudes the creation of an easement, a usufructuary right, or other servitude or any other interest in a right of occupancy or a iease and any other act by an occupier ofa right ofoccupancy or under a iease whereby his rights over that right of occupancy or iease are affected and an agreement to undertake any ofthe dispositions so defined" In iine to the foregoing, he furthermore cited to me the provisions of section 95 of Civil Procedure Code Act, 1966 (henceforth Cap. 33) which reads: "Nothing in this Code shaii be deemed to iimit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends ofjustice or to prevent abuse of the process ofthe court". From the above, Mr. Kalolo submitted further that paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the plaint constitute a disposition within the meaning of Cap 113. He added, upon granted licence, the plaintiff spent some money in making the land suitable for business. Then, he stationed a container over that land and stocked various building materials. Without notice, the land was invaded by the defendant militiamen who took away ail his building materials and other items to unknown place. According to Mr. Kaioio, it was that invasion and removal of the plaintiff as well seizing his items from the land to unknown place which raised the dispute which ultimately landed to this court. According to him therefore, ail the foregoing fails within the purview of land matter. Definitely, he added this court have jurisdiction to hear and determine it. He supported his argument by the provisions of section 167 (1) of Cap 113 which vests land courts with jurisdiction to hear and determine ail manner of disputes, actions and proceedings concerning land. Section 167 (1) of Cap 113 and Section 3(2) of the Land Disputes Courts Act, 2002 (henceforth Cap 216) enlists those courts as the Court of Appeal, the High Court, District Land and Housing Tribunals, Ward Tribunals and Village Land Councils. He again referred me to section 3(1) of Cap 216 which provides inter |a//5that every dispute or complaint concerning land shall be instituted in a Court having jurisdiction to determine land dispute, subject to the provisions of section 167 of Cap 113 and section 62 of the Village Land Act, 1999. It is also his submission that since the defendant permitted the plaintiff to use the land and the plaintiff showed interest to use it, made it suitable for his business and thereafter paid fees to the defendant, that follows that they had relationship over that land and the defendants' act of seizing his items and taking them away to unknown place without issuing notice to the plaintiff, amounted to a dispute concerning interest in land. While admitting that there are courts which have jurisdiction to hear and determine all manner of disputes, actions and proceedings concerning land as per provisions of the law cited herein above, in her written submissions, Ms. Grace Lupondo, the iearned state attorney for the defendant, stated that this suit is not land matter, and therefore this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain it. Having considered their respective submissions and relevant laws on jurisdiction of the court over land matters, I am constrained to look at the law that established the High Court. Article 108 of the Constitution of the United Repubiic of Tanzania, 1977 as amended, provides that the High Court is a creature of the Constitution. For ease of reference Articie 108(1)and (2)of the Constitution reads; "108.-(1) There shall be a High Court ofthe United Republic(to be referred to In short as "the High Court") the jurisdiction of which shall be as specified In this Constitution or In any other law. (2) Where this Constitution or any other law does not expressly provide that any specified matter shall flrst be heard by a court specified for that purpose, then the High Court shall have jurisdiction to hear every matter ofsuch type. Similarly, the High Court shall have jurisdiction to deal with any matter which, according to legal traditions obtaining In Tanzania, is ordinarily dealt with by a High Court provided that; the provisions ofthis sub article shall apply withoutprejudice to the Jurisdiction of the Court ofAppeai of Tanzania as provided for in this Constitution or in any other law". In line to the foregoing, the iaw that creates iand courts come into piay. Thus, Cap 113 and Cap 216 are the relevant law which are one of the any other laws referred to article 108 of the Constitution. As regards to the matter in hand, I think, section 37 (1)(b) and (e) of Cap 216 is reievant. For ease of reference I quote it as hereunder: "37(1). Subject to the provisionsofthis Act, the High Court shaii have and exercise originaljurisdiction- (b) in other proceedings where the subject matter capable ofbeing estimated ata money value (e) in aii such other proceedings relating to iand under any written iaw in respect of which jurisdiction is notlimited to any particular court or tribunal." In connection to the foregoing, I have in mind that at Sokoine Drive court, the plaintiff stood charged with the offence of erecting a stail without possessing a vaiid permit contrary to sections 100 and 16 of the Dar es Saiaam City Council by Laws, 1991. Obviously he erected on the land. He was acquitted of offence after he had satisfied the court that he lawfuiiy entered into the iand after he was permitted by the defendant who issued him a licence with Ref. No. CE/M/10/95 dated 6'^ June, 1993. As also submitted by Mr. Kaiolo, he spent sum of money to make it suitable for his business. First, he brought land surveyors who come and showed him the boundaries. Secondly, he paid compensation in the sum of Tzs 3,910,000/= to people who had grown crops thereon. Thirdly, he spent Tzs 3,000,000/= for clearing the land and construction of slabs for storing water for watering the bricks. Fourthly, he spent Tzs 5,000,000/= for erecting foundation and a roof for sheltering the containers, and a place where his workers and customers would be sitting in case of rain. Fifthly he fixed a water tap for Tzs 950,000/=. On 10"^ August, 1994 he applied and he was issued with another licence dated 3'''' November, 1994 by City Director to fill in and leveled the sands to make the land suitable and firm for vehicle parking without sinking. Thus, sixthly, he spent Tzs 49, 810,000/= for that activity. He then applied for a licence for operating his business. Licence No, B000113491 in his names was issued to him by the defendant. Looking at the totality of foregoing, indeed, one can agree with me that as he had valid licence to operate business on the land, the plaintiff lawfully entered into the land and started conducting business. Hence, if I may be excused, I may say, and I am saying that there was a relationship 9 between the defendant (Landlord) and the plaintiff (tenant) over the land. Therefore, defendant's submission that the plaintiff occupied that land iiiegaiiy and unlawfully conducting business of making and selling bricks does not hold water. Thus, for these reasons and on reflection after being addressed by the parties and having considered the laws cited to me, I am now satisfied that this dispute relates to land and therefore this court is vested with jurisdiction to hear and determine it. Having found that this court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter, I now proceed to resolve the framed issues on merit by examining and analyzing the evidence adduced by both parties. In the course of proving his case, the plaintiff fielded four plaintiff's witnesses namely Charles Christopher Humfrey Richard Kombe as plaintiff witness No. 1 (PWl), Hassan Mohamed as PW2, Issa Bakarl Ulaya as PW3 and David Kapinga as PW4; while the defendant brought only one defendant witness namely Xavier Ndalahwa as a sole witness. The framed issues are as hereunder; 1. Whether there was confiscation of plaintiff's properties by the defendant. 10 2. Whether the properties referredto issue No. 1 above, worth Tzs 1,293,343,800/= 3. Whether there was justification for the defendant to confiscate the plaintiff's properties 4. What are reliefs the parties are entitled to. In his testimony, PWl stated that he conducts business of making and selling bricks of different sizes and also business of buying, storing, and selling cereals. He had offices at Tibaigwa Market in Dodoma and other offices at Msasani area along Old Bagamoyo road, at Biafra area along Kawawa road, at Gowima Street at Mwananyamala. He asserted that he was permitted by Dar es Salaam City Council to conduct business at Msasani and Biafra areas. He was issued with licences by Kinondoni Director to whom he was paying fees. At Msasani, he was conducting business of building materials such as bricks, cements, hardwares, et cetera. Bricks were being made of sands, cements and chippings. He used four vibrated Machines which were run by diesei. Each machine had capacity of producing four vibrated bricks at once. He had also wheelbarrows, spade, pipes for watering bricks, water reserve items connected to 200 litres water tanks; and, also water reserve 11 items; thousands of brick stand (Vibao), two driiied water weiis and vehicie for that business. On 27^ October, 1999 when he arrived at the land from Chanika village, he found invasion by defendant's officers and militiamen. They broke and destroyed his office and the roof under which the containers were placed. Stalls for keeping building materials were demolished. Likewise, vehicie spare parts and various items were taken away. He Struggled to have them returned and be compensated, but in vain. Stead the defendant demanded Tzs 800,000/= from him. He insisted that he had valid permit from the defendant to conduct business on that land. Stead, the defendant accused him that he constructed stores, and placed containers thereon iiiegaiiy and unlawfully. He was arraigned at Sokoine Drive Court which later on acquitted him after satisfying that he was not guilty; the decision which was confirmed on appeal by High Court. The defendant was ordered by the court to return to him the seized items, the order which has been defied by the defendant. The plaintiff listed items which were destroyed, removed and seized from the land. There was no objection from the defendant. The list was 12 therefore produced and admitted as exhibit P3 which contains the following: 1. Kontena la urefu wa futi 40 kwa thamani Shs 3,700,000/= 2. Fedha zangu kwa ajiH ya safari yangu ya Dodoma kibiashara ambazo zipo ndaniya droo ya meza yangu. Shs.985,000,000/= 3. Fedha za mauzo ambazo Karani aiikuwa hajanikabidhi ambazo zipo ndani ya drooya meza yake Shs 12,670,000/= 4. Meza moja ya mninga kwa matumizi yangu Kwa thamani ya Shs 215,000/= 5. Viti viwiii vya mninga kwa matumizi yangu Kwa thamani ya Shs. 18,000/= 6. Meza moja ya mpodo kwa matumizi ya Karani Kwa thamani ya Shs. 79,500/= 7. Kiti kimoja cha mpodo kwa matumizi ya Karani Kwa thamani ya Shs. 35,800/= 8. Gunia kumiza misumari ya Ceiiing board Kwa thamani ya Shs. 1,010,000/= 9. Gunia kumi na sita za misumari ya bad Kwa thamani ya Shs 1,615,000/= 10. Mabati ya aiuminia ya kuezekea magodown ya pc3,150za geji 26za urefu mita tatu @ moja Kwa thamani ya Shs.39,375,000/= 11. Boxza Taiis 440 kwa thamani ya Shs. 11,000,000/= 12. Boxza Taiis 10 kwa thamani ya Shs. 66,000/= 13. Pipa 3za ujazo wa iita 200 kwa thamani Shs. 73, 500/= 14. Cement mifuko 880 kwa thamani ya Shs. 6,600,000/= 15. Haidroiikpumb 3kwa thamani ya Shs. 13,650,000/= 16. Haidroiik siiindajeki3 kwa thamani ya Shs.39,750,000/= 17. Siiinda hedigasketseti3 kwa thamani Shs 1,150,000/= 13 18 Ring piston seti3kwa thamani Shs 3,450,000/= 19. Gear box3kwa thamani ya Shs.58,500,000/= 20. Control vaive 3kwa thamani ya Shs. 1,374,000/= 21. Otoneta 3kwa thamani ya 5hs.5,850,000/= 22. Sevu dach 3kwa thamani ya Shs 7,150,000/= 23. Mastaa siiinda 3kwa thamani ya Shs 1,800,000/= 24. Repea kiti ya sevu dach 3kwa thamani ya Shs 405,000/= 25. Repea kiti ya Masta siiinda dash 3kwa thamani ya Shs 210,000/= 26. Con Bering set3kwa thamani ya Shs. 2,100,000/= 27. Man Bering set3kwa thamani ya. Shs.3,545,000/= 28. Crossjointset3kwa thamani ya Shs. 925,000/= 29. Propeia shaft3kwa thamani ya Shs 3,015,000/= 30. Tras washeiset3kwa thamani ya Shs 416,000/= 31. Mzani1 wa kupimia vitu kwa thamani ya Shs 421,000/= 32. Mpira wa Maji mita 450 kwa thamani ya Shs.910,000/= 33. Mshine 4za dizeiiza kufyetuiia matofaii kwa thamani ya.... Shs. 87,120,000/= 34. Wiiibaro 6kwa thamani ya Shs. 145,000/= JUMLA Tshs 1,293,343,800/=" He went on asserting that as shown on exhibit P3 above, he had cash money Tzs 985,000,000/= which were kept therein for purposes of buying cereals at Tibaigwa, Dodoma. The Cashier also claimed that Tzs 12,670,000/= were also taken or stolen during that fracas. The supervisor at his work listed items which were taken away. They include four vibrated Machines, nine pipes, vehicle spareparts, building materials, files, toilet tiles. Iron sheets, nails, aluminum sheet, et cetera. 14 PW2, Hassan Mohamed, a watchman employed by PWl had more or less evidence with that of PWl. He told this court that in the morning of 11^ October, 1999 he was relieved from work. Later on, while resting at home he was awaken by a person who told him that at his work place the situation was not safe. He took his bicycle and rushed to his workplace. He found defendant's militiamen who upon a request, he was allowed to enter the land. He found destruction inside. Containers were missing, the roof sheltering the container was completely destroyed. He also witnessed the plaintiff's three stores demolished; one more container containing items such as iron sheets and sacks of nails was lifted up and loaded on to the defendant's vehicle by a crane; items kept Into the demolished store were collected and loaded in the defendant's vehicle and taken away to unknown place. Some more items Included vehicle spare parts, hydraulic cylinder, gear boxes, files, propeller shafts, jacks and several building materials were taken away. Not only that but also the militiamen led by one Chacha entered into the production area and took away water pipes, wheel barrows, plastic drums, four bricks making Machines and his fellow employee motor cycle. Later on PWl arrived and he narrated to him what happened. PWl became sad and sick. He was taken to hospital for checkup. On the third 15 day of the event, a meeting was convened in order to verify the exact items which were taken away and which were destroyed. PWl told the meeting that his cash money totaling Tzs 985,000,000/= were taken away. The money was kept there for purposes of buying Maize and other cereals in Dodoma on the following day. The cashier also told the meeting that Tzs 12,670,000/=, the produce of previous sale, were taken away. The store keeper told the meeting of the stolen or taken away items.The production supervisor also told the meeting of what were missing or taken away from production area. When cross examined by Mr. Burton Mahenge, municipal solicitor, PW2 asserted that at the time he was relieved; the militiamen from the defendant had not yet arrived at the place of work. When he rushed back at work place he found them there and also witnessed stiii loading the Items and destructing the structures belonging to PWl. PWl arrived at place of work and found them already left. PW3, Issa Bahari Uiaya's evidence is a confirmation that he was a partner in business with PWl of buying and selling cereals such as maize in various places such as Sumbawanga, Songea and Dodoma. They knew each other since 1994 when they met in Sumbawanga. They were buying 16 cereals by cash from individual villagers and store them in a huge quantity of kilograms. The purchase price of cereals in 1996 ranged more than 300m/= and they were selling on trust or loan to firms such as Interchick, Zainabu company, Scandinavia, M-south super Sembe, etc. In October, 1999, he was in Dar es Salaam collecting money from those owed them until 10"^ October, 1999. At that time he had already collected more than Tzs 900m/=. They projected to buy cereals worth more than Tzs lb/=. It was PWl who had to add more money to reach Tzs lb/= as capital on that particular season. He asserted further that on 20"^ October, 1999 he returned to Dar es Salaam to buy bags for storing cereals from the villagers. He was assigned a lorry by PWl. He went to Kariakoo to load those bags. PWl left for a meeting. They had scheduled to travel at night to Dodoma on 27"^ October, 1999. After collecting the bags, he went back to PWl's place of work where he found militiamen loading containers and various items into vehicles then drove them away. PWl arrived there and found the militiamen had already gone away with the items. Their trip to Dodoma was cancelled for reason that PWl's area was invaded and massive destruction was made there on by the defendant, that the money in the tune of Tzs 985,000,000/= were taken away; and, that upon finding such 17 destruction and taking away of his items PWl suffered from High Blood pressure (HBP) and was rushed to Hospital for check up. PW4, David Kapinga, testified that in 1999, he was supervising construction activities at a site of one Rwechungura at Mbezi beach. On 27"^ October, 1999 Rwechungura gave him Tzs 5,750,000/= for purposes of buying building materials such as 500 bags of cement and 2000 vibrated chipping bricks from PWl. He made payment and left to Kariakoo to buy other items which were out of stock at PWl's working place. PW4 asserted more that when he returned to PWl's place of business to collect the items he had already paid for, he found militiamen and vehicles from the defendant. He was prevented from collecting his items. Instead, those militiamen were busy loading PWl's items into their city vehicles. Various items such as building materials, files boxes, vehicle spare parts, bags of cements and bags of nails, gearboxes. Hydraulic Jacks, wheelbarrows, plastic water tanks, a motor cycle, containers, 4 bricks making machines were ail collected and taken to unknown place. He was confused. However, he identified one person called Mahinya who was employed by city council. 18 Upon closure of the plaintiff case, defendant case was opened. DWl Xavier Ndaiahwa, by then a Civil technician cum building inspector working with the defendant, asserted that in 1999 he was involved in a lot of works including removing people or businessmen who were conducting businesses on open spaces without permit. He said, one of those businessmen was PWl who was conducting bricks and building material business, and had placed containers thereon. His items were confiscated by the Kinondoni Municipality. He was then arraigned in court charged with criminal offences. He was however found not guilty and therefore acquitted as per exhibit PI. He also identified exhibit P2 and P3. He insisted that the plaintiff deserved compensation in the tune of Tzs 12,670,000/=. The rest of his claims, he said, were baseless as no receipts were produced by PWl to substantiate his claims. When cross examined by Mr. Kaloio, DWl admitted he was not spokesman of the defendant, but rather his representative. He admitted also to be invoived in the exercise of removing PWl from the land; that he did not make inventories at the time of removing and collecting PWl's items; and, that he did not know whether those items were returned to PWl. He just stated that the defendant was waiting for the decision of this court and thereafter he would determine whether to return the items 19 confiscated or not. But, he admitted that there was an order of the court to return them. In brief, the above is aii about the evidence adduced by both parties. Let me move on anaiyzing the evidence on the record in effort to answer the framed issues. From the submission of Mr. Kaioio, the iearned advocate for the piaintiff, this is a suit founded on a judgment, exhibit PI delivered on 17"^ December 2004 in favour of the piaintiff at Sokoine Drive Court in Criminal Case No. 2310 of 1999 which on appeal the High Court upheld and confirmed it, exhibit P2 in Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2005. It was insisted that the defendant has to return the items seized from the piaintiff. I also agree with Mr. Kaioio that in terms of item 16 Part I of the Schedule to the Law of limitation Act, Cap 89 the suit is actionable within 12 years; hence this suit is timeous. Admittedly, it is undisputed that the plaintiff's place of business was invaded by the defendant. DWl was involved in that exercise as he himself admitted in his testimony. It is equally not in dispute that the piaintiff was criminally prosecuted, but he was acquitted of the charges leveled against him after he was found not guilty. 20 That concurrent decision of the two competent courts takes me to the first and third issues of whether there was confiscation of the piaintiff's items by the defendant and whether there was justification for such confiscation. On the strength of the exhibits PI and P2, the concurrent decisions of the Sokoine drive court and High Court respectively, it is obvious that confiscation of PWl's items was committed by the defendant. This is proved further by the evidence that was adduced by the plaintiff witnesses PWl, PW2, PW3 and PW4 whose evidence are more or less similar. Their evidence is also supported by the evidence of DWl whose evidence did not dispute the plaintiff evidence. He admitted that he participated in the exercise whereby several items from business place at Msasani belonging to the plaintiff were confiscated by the defendant, and that those items have not yet been returned to him to date, despite court order and plaintiff's demands. As the above evidence goes, I find no reasons to fault the piaintiff's evidence as supported by that of DWl who admitted that there was that exercise and the defendant is stiii in possession of the plaintiff's items. Moreover, from the evidence recorded I don't find any justification by the defendant to confiscate those items as it is on the record that the defendant himself issued licences permitting the plaintiff to conduct 21 building materials business thereon. Thus, forceful removal of the plaintiff from the land that he lawfully entered and destroying what were affixed on that land and taking away of his Items to unknown place by the defendant without notice was unwelcomed and unwarranted move which amounted to Injustice. Hence the and 3'''' Issues are answered In the affirmative. That takes me to the Z"'' Issue of whether the Items seized by the defendant worthy Tzs 1,293,343,800/=. According to DWl, the Items confiscated worth 12,676,000/= and Is that sum of money the plaintiff deserves. On the other hand, the evidence adduced by the plaintiff shows that a number of Items were taken away and some stores destroyed. No Inventory was taken at the time of seizing those items. There was no reason assigned by the defendant to that effect. On the other hand, the plaintiff produced and as there was no objection raised by the defendant, a document containing Items that were confiscated was admitted In evidence as exhibit P3. After analyzing such evidence, I am made to believe that Indeed those contained In exhibit P3 are the Items confiscated from the land that PWl was licensed to conduct building material business. For the purposes of emphasis, exhibit P3 Is the some list that was tendered in criminal case No 2310 of 1999 at sokolne drive court. The 22 listed items were seized and impounded without first taking an inventory or stock of the same at the scene where they were being stocked or kept. As submitted by Mr. Kaiolo, that act proves bad intention or big headedness on the part of the defendant which should not go without condemnation. Likewise, it is very difficult to appreciate why the defendant failed to return the confiscated items to the plaintiff as ordered by courts. This is again clearly a travesty of Justice which should be discouraged. In exhibit P3, PWl alleged that he lost Tzs 985,000,000/=. In his submission, the defendant asserted that there was no proof that PWl kept such huge money in office drawers. He added the evidence of PW3 is that he was told by PWl that he had such money in his office and that that money was taken away. The defendant's lawyer again submitted that what the plaintiff deserved was Tzs 12,676,000/=, the produce of the previous day sale. It is my opinion that if he believed that the plaintiff deserves Tzs 12,676,000/= as compensation, why is he hesitating to also believe that the plaintiff had kept Tzs 985,000,000/= in the container, the money that was to be used in buying cereals. In Dodoma on the following day. For lack of firm explanation contraryto exhibit P3 which was not objected at its production, lam constrained to believe it and the evidence of PWl and 23 PW3 that they were scheduled to travel to Dodoma for purchasing cereal crops. In line of the above argument, I found myself believing what are alleged in the exhibit P3. He who alleges in iaw must prove as per sections 110, 111, and 112 of the Evidence Act Cap 6. I am of considered view that the plaintiff has sufficiently discharged his burden of proving his ciaims on balance of probability. The production in evidence of exhibits PI, P2 and P3 as documentary evidence have to a great extent supported oral evidence adduced by the plaintiff witnesses. Admittedly, the relevance of Criminal Judgment in Civil Cases as per Section 43. A of Cap.6 has to a great extent supported the plaintiff's case. In fine, for reasons and evidence analyzed herein before, I find that plaintiff has successfully and sufficiently proved his claims against the defendant on the balance of probability. I proceed to order the defendant to pay the sum of Tzs 1,293,343,800/= being the vaiue of container, goods, items and other materials as per exhibit P3, which were unlawfuiiy taken away from the piaintiff's place of business at Msasani area. The defendant is also condemned to pay interest to the plaintiff on the decretal sum stated above at a court rate from the date of this judgment to the 24 date of payment in full. The defendant Is also condemned to pay the plaintiff costs of this suit. It Is so ordered. J.S. MGETTA JUDGE 19/10/2020 COURT: This judgment is delivered today this 19"^ October, 2020 In the presence of Mr. Richard Madlbl, assisted by Ms Genoveva Kaloio Bundala, both learned advocates for the plaintiff and in the presence of Ms. Leah KImaro, the learned municipal solicitor for the defendant. J.S. MGETTA JUDGE 19/10/2020 COURT: Right of appeal to the Court of Appeal Is fully explained. f MGETTA > JUDGE 19/10/2020 25