delphina g patrick vs director temeke municipal council 2003 tzhc 27 31 july 2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TAN&ANIA ■ ■ (DAI? -S3 SALAAM DISTRICT ^ G I 'iT iil) AT DA,.; S.S _joALAAM C IV IL CASE N0a2 n OF2002 DELPHINA G, PATRICK •300 00000 ooooooooooaooooooo® . PLAINTIFF i <3Uo , THE Dir-ECOX)'?, TMFKE m u n ic ip a l c o u n c il 1 °°° °° 3« 3 , 0 D^TCMDANT Luanda , j. JUDGMENT DSLPHIKA A, P A C T t (h e re in a fte r re fe rr e d as the 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 18 7 ^ 76n/ b e in g v a lu e o f h w i / t ° ,/ l 5 ,7 o O / ~ ■ oth s t r a y e d or/end lo s t p a r t i e s upon demolition o f her premises, lo s s of business in terest and costs. _ The case proceeded exp .rto because the d e f e n d s f a i le d to f i l , h e ir w ritten statement o f defence in time. The p l a i n t i f f s case io to th is e f f e c t ; - The- a l a i 'n t i 'f , * «n a shop at T „ e k e Hwi~ho 1<hio(, ro r, , . . , ?1 ^ u v?r.i.am eu 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 (Sxht P 1 ) . Sometime in Kay 20oi b • • T .u „t .. ' ' was marked with an X m a r k . That a c c o rd m , to the P l a i n t i f f s i „ n i f i ufl th„t the - i f an »• • prem ises stood was needed. WlUCh her 3he made on in qu iry with the . w =rd „,t s i t e was not needed. -- - -~ -t. was auured that the On 2^4/7/2001 around 6.00 - „ s’r ,, „ . ■ . inform ing that her sinp , I . “ 'I ™ ? jUUP ueuolistaod nnd ",r-n^ „ J. 1 she rushed to fh,- -< C j^ rtie o taken. Jeu t 0 thfe Scene. Indeed she SnW t h .. p ro p e rtie s were no whop t - b ‘ ~ asm olish^ « 4 p o lic e with , ■ 3een' " 6 thUS reForted O ^ng.om b. p o lic c . ,ith p o lic e , they went to the defendant. I t was discovered th a t a D e p u ty v „ r, i r s r „„„ , . th e.dem olition order T V rt r ‘* '' ' 15sa« * 1„ « „ C e n d a n t was prepared to make ,ood the lo s s . He d irected the p l a i n t i f f t„ ■ “ j. —'•tiii to suonut the ^ *i <=?+ ,-,-p , ^ . The p l a i n t i f f did that f w w to , ’ propertxse. (i-iXht p2i-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 thenaf-f-^ 4-- 4-u demandl e t t e r (Exht p2) ’ lawyer who wrote a / 2 / L ast but not. le a s t a n o t ic e tq. sue (Exh P5) was w r it t e n and dispached t o th e defendant as mandated by 3.97 o f the L o c a l Government- (Urban A u t h o r i t i e s ) , 1982. There was no resp on d , aence f i l i n g o f t h i s s u it . To s u b s tia te her case she produced pftotograpns o f ner .mops b e fo r e and a f t e r th e d e m o litio n (3 x h t P3 & P*0# The p l a i n t i f f i s p r a y in g f o r T 3h s.11,203,700/= as v a lu e o f her l o s t goods. I have c a r e f u l l y gone th rough the l i s t as w e ll as th e p ic tu re s # I am s a t i s f i e d th a t th e amount i s riot on the high s id e . As r e g a r d s to a s s e ts and b u ild in g , th e p l a i n t i f i i s c la im in g T3hs. 2,10 0,000/~. But she d id not . what a s s e ts were in sid e th e shop and she d id not say how she a r r iv e d at th a t fig u r e # It i s a carc.-inal . p r in c ip le in a l l c i v i l l i t i g a t i o n th a t he who avers has to prove. The p l a n t i f f f a i l e d in t h is item# L ik e w is e , she d id not d is c h a rg e burden as how she was g e t t in g T3hs.10,000/= p e r day. In th e f i n a l a n a ly s is , t h e r e f o r e , I enter judgement m fa v o u r o f th e p l a i n t i f f to th e tuna n f T':;hs. 11,203,7^0/= p lu s in t e r e s t , a t th e c o u r t 's r a t e from th e d a te o f i n s t i t u t i n g t h is case and judgement. F u rth e r, from th e d a te o f judgement t i l l fin e d payment the p r in c ip a l s h a ll c a r ry in t e r e s t at b :n k 's r a r e . The defendant i s also condemned t o pay c o s t s o f t h i s case. O rder a c c o r d in g ly . f 23/06/2003 Judgement rea d ov^r in the ’ esence o f Mr K a s ik ila f o r th e V p l a i n t i f f and d efen d en t absent. KJV-KDA, J, "•5 1 / 07/2003