delphina g patrick vs director temeke municipal council 2003 tzhc 54 23 june 2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TAN&ANIA ■ ■(DAI? -S3 SALAAM DISTRICT ^ G I'iT iil) AT DA,.; S.S _joALAAM CIVIL CASE N0 a2 n OF 2002 DELPHINA G, PATRICK •300 0 0000 ooooooooooaooooooo® . PLAINTIFF i <3Uo , THE Dir-ECOX)'?, T M F K E municipal council 1 °°° °° 3«3, 0 D^TCMDANT Luanda , j. JUDGMENT DSLPHIKA A , P A C T t (h e r e in a fte r r e fe r r e d as th e in s titu te d a C i v i l case aga ist TT-rff’ n r ^ frn-, /u ■ x- - MUNICIPAL c o u n c tt ( h e re in a fte r re fe rre d to a r' the nef f % * -----^ ' e JJeft) fo r recovery of T ^ s 1 8 7 ^ 7 6 n being value o f h w i / <o 5/1-5,7o0, ' ' of „ s t r a y e d o r / e n d lost p a r t i e s u p o n d e m o l i t i o n of h e r p r e m is e s , l o s s o f b u s in e s . i n t e r e s t and c o s t s . _ The c a s e p ro c e e d e d e x p a r to b ecau se th e d e f e n d s fa ile d to fil, h e ir w r itte n s ta te m e n t o f d e fe n c e i n t im e . The p l a i n t i f f s case io to t h is e ffe c t;- The- a l a - i n t i - T , * own a shop a t T „ e k e Hw i~h o w h ich c o r d e d ““ d u v ? r .i.a m e u a number o f nrtiVlo® The p l a i n t i f f had a b u s i n g , l i c , ^ . ,, . -t id e s . - beuta 0y tne defendant (Sxfct p-|) Sometime in Kay 20oi b • • T.u„t .. ' was m arked w it h an X m ark. That a c c o r d m , to th e P l a i n t i f f s i „ n i f i „ a th „t the - i f on »• • p r e m is e s s t o o d was n e e d e d . WlUCh h e r 3he made .an i n q u i r y w ith t h e . w = r j „ „ t s ite was n o t n e e d e d . - - - -~ -t. was a u u red t h a t t h e On 2^4/7/2001 a ro u n d 6 .0 0 - „ s ’r ,, „ . ■ . in f o r m i n g h e r t h a t h e r shop C '^ 7 ? t * * * h » ^ jUUP ueuolistaod nnd ",r-n^ ~ i. 1 she rushed to th,- -< C j^ rtie o taken. Jeu t 0 thfe Scene. Indeed she SnW t h .. p r o p e r t i e s w e r e no whop t- b ‘ ' “ ’ 3 a e m o lis h e d « * p o lic e w it h , ■3 e en ' " 6 thUS r e F o r t e d p o lic c . ,ith p o lic e , t h e y w ent t o th e d e fe n d a n t . I t was d isco v ered that a. Deputy v „ r, i r s r „„„ , . t h e . d e m o l i t i o n o r d e r T V rt r ‘* * ' ' 1 5 s a « * 1„ « „ C e n d a n t was p r e p a r e d t o make ,3od t h e lo s s . He d i r e c t e d th e p l a i n t i f f t " ' * « “ j. — '•tiii to suonut t h e ^ *i <=?+ ,-,-p , ^ . The p l a i n t i f f d id t h a t f w w t o , ’ p ro p e rtx s e . (i-iXht p2 i-innexture) -rid m-Hp fr,n to no a v a il. qhe f i „ , n o lj-ow UP hut * ° ne f i n a l ly re fe rr e d the naf-f-^ 4- - 4.1.' demand l e t t e r (Exht p2) ’ lawyer who wrote a Last but not. le a s t a n o tic e tq. sue (Exh P5) was w ritten and dispached to the defendant as mandated by 3.97 o f the Local Government- (Urban A u t h o r it ie s ), 1982. There was no respond, aence f i l i n g o f t h is s u it . To s u b s t i a t e her case sh e p r o d u c e d p fto to g r a p n s o f ner .m ops b e f o r e and a f t e r th e d e m o litio n (3 x h t P 3 & P*0 # The p l a i n t i f f is p r a y in g f o r T 3 hs. 1 1 ,2 0 3 ,7 0 0 / = a s v a l u e o f h e r l o s t goods. I have c a r e f u lly gone th ro u g h th e l i s t as w e ll as th e p ic tu r e s # I am s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h e amount i s riot o n t h e h ig h s i d e . As r e g a rd s to a s s e t s and b u i l d i n g , th e p l a i n t i f i is c la im in g T 3 h s .2 ,1 0 0 ,00 0/ ~ . But sh e d i d n o t . w hat a s s e t s w e r e i n s i d e th e shop and sh e d i d not sa y how she a r r i v e d a t th a t fig u r e # It is a c a rc .-in a l . p r in c ip le in a ll c iv il lit ig a t io n th a t he who a v e r s h a s t o p r o v e . The p l a n t i f f fa ile d in t h is item # L ik e w is e , sh e d id n ot d is c h a r g e b u r d e n a s how she was g e t t i n g T 3 h s . 1 0 ,0 0 0 / = p e r d a y . In th e fin a l a n a ly s is , th e r e fo r e , I e n te r ju d g em en t m fa v o u r o f th e p l a i n t i f f to t h e tu n a n f T ':;h s. 1 1 ,2 0 3 ,7 ^ 0 / = p l u s in t e r e s t, a t th e c o u r t 's ra te fr o m th e d a te o f in s titu tin g th is c a s e and ju d g e m e n t. F u rth e r, fr o m th e d a te o f ju d g e m e n t t i l l fin e d paym ent t h e p r i n c i p a l s h a ll c a rry in te r e s t a t b : n k 's r a r e . The d e fe n d a n t is a ls o condem ned to pay c o s ts o f t h is case. Order accordingly. f 23/06/2003 J u dgem en t r e a d o v ^ r in th e ’ e s e n c e o f Mr K a s i k i l a fo r th e V p la in t iff and d e fe n d e n t a b se n t. KJV-KDA, J, "•5 1 / 0 7 / 2 0 0 3