Kiribo v

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA MUSOMA SUB-REGISTRY AT MUSOMA CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3492/2024 (Arising from Civil Case No 15 of 2022 of the District Court of Tarime, Hon. S.J. Mwakihaba, SRM) GODFREY KABITHO …………………………..…………………..……. 1ST APPELLANT MWIKWABE MWITA MITITI ………………………………….……… 2ND APPELLANT MOSES SAMWEL OMARA ……………………………………………… 3RD APPELLANT MWIKWABE MASERO …………………………………………….……. 4TH APPELLANT ROBERT MWITA MITITI ……………………………………………….. 5TH APPELLANT MUSOMI JOSEPHAT ……………………………………..……………… 6TH APPELLANT FORTUNATUS RHOBI WANGUBO ……………………………………. 7TH APPELLANT DAVID CHARLES …………………………………………………………. 8TH APPELLANT ANDREW DAUDI …………………………………………..…………….. 9TH APPELLANT MANGURE IBRAHIM MANGURE ……………………………………. 10TH APPELLANT BHOKA ERNEST ………………………………………………………… 11TH APPELLANT GODFREY JOSEPH …………………………………………………….. 12TH APPELLANT EPHRAIM VALENTINE MUSHI …………………………….……….. 13TH APPELLANT NDEWARIO AMON ……………………………………………………. 14TH APPELLANT ERICK MBUNI …………………………………………………………. 15TH APPELLANT VERSUS KIRIBO LIMITED @ KIBACHO MONTANA KIRIBO GENERAL SUPPLIES ………..………… RESPONDENT 1 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 21/05/2024 & 25/06/2024 Kafanabo, J.: This is an appeal that emanates from the judgment and decree of the District Court of Tarime (Hon. Mwakihaba, SRM) in Civil Case No. 15 of 2022 dated 20th December, 2023. A brief background of the matter is that the Appellants herein instituted a suit in the District Court of Tarime (hereinafter the trial court) claiming for the payment of specific damages of Tanzania Shillings (TZS) 114,687,875/= arising from the alleged unpaid and unremitted statutory contributions which were deducted by the Respondent from the Appellants’ salaries and the Respondent, by law, was supposed to remit the same on behalf of the Appellants herein to the relevant pension funds. Another claim was that of general damages of TZS 200,000,000/= for the loss suffered and costs for the whole time the Respondent has delayed to make payment of the above claimed specific damages. The Appellants also prayed for interest at the Court’s rate on the actual amount the Respondent was supposed to pay them from the date of judgment and decree to the date of final payment, and costs of the suit. From the entire amount of specific damages claimed, TZS 30,901,058/= was claimed by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 15th Appellants against the Respondent being an unpaid compulsory statutory contribution to the Public Service Social Security Fund (PSSSF). The remaining amount of TZS. 83,786,817/= was claimed by all the Appellants against the Respondent for payment of an unpaid compulsory statutory contribution to the National 2 Social Security Fund (NSSF). The said amount of money was, allegedly, deducted as statutory deductions from the Appellants’ salaries when they were employed by the Respondent. However, the said amount was not remitted to the relevant pension funds even after several follow ups. The Appellant’s therefore instituted a suit with a view to recover the said amount from their former employer. In determining the suit, the trial court framed four issues as follows: i. Whether the Respondent deducted from the Appellants’ salaries any statutory contributions to Pensions funds (PSSSF & NSSF). ii. Whether the Respondent remitted the said statutory deductions to pension funds. iii. Whether the Appellants are entitled to demand and get paid the statutory deductions by the Respondent in place of their respective pension funds. iv. Whether the delay to pay such contributions was caused by the Respondent. The matter was heard by the trial court and the court found that the Appellants managed to prove their claims that the Respondent deducted 10% of the Appellants’ salaries and that the Appellants had valid claims, but not against the Respondent, instead they were supposed to lodge their claims against the relevant pension funds, that is NSSF and PSSSF because the Respondent, according to the trial court, had proved that the amount deducted was remitted to the relevant pension funds. 3 Morover, the Relevant issues as framed by the trial court were determined as follows: The first issue Whether the Respondent deducted from the Appellants’ salaries any statutory contributions to pensions funds (PSSSF & NSSF). “Since, in his evidence, the Respondent did not dispute to have deducted from the Appellants’ salaries the alleged statutory contributions but rather he was emphatic that he had already remitted all Appellants’ contributions to NSSF, the first issue is answered in affirmative that, Respondent deducted from the Appellants’ salaries statutory contributions which were required to be remitted to pensions funds (PSSF & NSSF).” The second issue: Whether the Respondent remitted the said statutory deductions to pension funds. “Since the CRDB remittance advice/bank pay in slips (exhibit DE1) are of recent/late dates than the correspondences between the pension funds and the Respondent which suggest that the Respondent did not remit his employees’ statutory contributions to pension funds, it is taken by this Court that, these CRDB remittance advice/bank pay in slips (exhibit DE1) which, as I have said are of recent/late dates, prove that the Respondent remitted his employees’ statutory contributions to 4 the Appellants’ respective pension funds and for that reason, the second issue is also answered in affirmative.” The third issue Whether the Appellants are entitled to demand and get paid the statutory deductions by the Respondent in place of their respective pension funds. “I therefore, in the third issue, find that, the Appellants are entitled to demand and get paid their statutory deductions but not by the Respondent in place of their respective pension funds, but instead, all the Appellants are entitled to demand and get paid their statutory deductions through/by lodging their claims to respective pension funds (PSSSF and NSSF) to the extent shown herein above. I make this finding because of the response I made in the second issue which is to the effect that, the Respondent has already remitted the Appellants’ statutory deductions to the respective pension funds”. The fourth issue was ruled to be inconsequential and thus not determined by the by the trial court. The Appellants being dissatisfied by the decree and judgment of the trial Court appealed to this court on the following grounds: 1. That, the trial magistrate erred in law and fact in admitting and relying the documentary evidence (that is to say the payment and deposit receipts which were not forming part and parcel of the Respondent’s pleadings. 5 2. That, the trial magistrate erred in law and fact to reach into a conclusion that the Respondent herein have already remitted the claimed amount to Social Security Funds (PSSSF and NSSF) while there is no any proof that the said money (if any as could have been remitted by the Respondent) was remitted by the Respondent on behalf of the Appellants. 3. That, the trial magistrate erred in law and in fact by failing to analyze the watertight evidence adduced by the Appellants as against the Respondent’s weak evidence. 4. That, the trial Magistrate in law and fact for failure to give an opportunity to the Appellants now appellants to cross examine the Respondent during the hearing of the case. 5. That, the Trial Magistrate erred in law and fact for denying the appellant’s Costs to the suit without giving reasons thereof contrary to the law. The trial Court also refuted to award general damages to the appellants without any sufficient reason. The Appellants also prayed for this court to grant the following reliefs at the end in determining this appeal: a) That, this honorable Court be pleased to find that the documentary evidence (that is to say, the payment and deposit receipts) by the Respondent were tendered and admitted contrary to legal requirement. As such the same be expunged from court record. b) That, this Honourable Court be Pleased to held (sic) the Respondent liable for failure to remit the Appellants’ statutory contribution to the respective social security fund schemes (PSSSF & NSSF). 6 c) Equally, this honorable Court be pleased to quash and set aside judgment and proceedings of District Court of Tarime in Civil Case No. 15 of 2022. d) That, this Honorable Court be pleased to condemn the respondent to pay the sum of TZS.114,687,875/= as the total amount that the respondent was liable to remit to respective social security fund schemes (PSSSF & NSSF) on behalf of the Appellants. e) That, this Honorable Court be pleased to make an order for the payment of general damages at the Tune of TZS. 200,000,000/= against the Respondent. f) That, this Court be pleased to step in the shoes of the trial Court and award the costs of the suit thereof and costs of this appeal be bared(sic) by the respondent. g) Any other relief this honorable Court may deem fit and just to grant. When the appeal was called for hearing Mr. Emmanuel Werema, learned Advocate, entered appearance for the Appellants and Mr. Samson Samo, learned Advocate, entered appearance for the Respondent. In support of the appeal, Mr. Werema submitted that as regards first ground of appeal, the trial court erred in law relying on the documents (exhibit DE1) tendered by the Respondent, because they were not pleaded in the written statement of defence (hereinafter the WSD). The parties are bound by their pleadings, and it was wrong for the trial court to admit the said documents whilst the same were not part of the WSD. As the Appellants were required to attach their documents as per Order 14, Rule1 of the Civil 7 Procedure Code, Cap. 33 R.E. 2019 (hereinafter the ‘CPC’), the Respondent is also required to do the same as per Order VIII Rule 2 of the CPC. It was also submitted that matters relating to payments must be explained well and in advance. Also Order 13(2) of the CPC provides that no document shall be admitted if it was not listed as a document to be relied upon by a party. Moreover, it was submitted that since the documents admitted as exhibit DE1 were bank payment slips and cheque deposit slips, the documents were wrongly admitted and considered as proof of payment settling the Appellants’ claims. This is because the slips of payment or cheques did not indicate names of the Respondent’s employees whose contributions were paid by the said payment slips or cheque deposit slips. The bank slips only indicated the name of the payer and amount. List of employees was not indicated in the payment slips so the trial court misdirected itself in accepting them as proof of payment. Therefore, it was submitted that that exhibit DE1 was wrongly received. The learned counsel referred this court to the Court of Appeal decision in the case of Airtel Tanzania Ltd v. Ose Power Solutions Limited Civil Appeal No. 206 of 2017. It was further submitted that the documents constituting exhibit DE1 was a surprise to the Appellants. The Appellants thus prayed that the Court be pleased to see that the Respondent did not prove payments to the Appellants as the exhibit DE1 did not meet the legal requirements for being admitted as an exhibit. 8 As regards the first ground of appeal the Respondent submitted that the trial court was right in admitting bank slips and cheque deposit slips which were admitted as exhibit DE1. This is due to the fact that in the final PTC the Respondent indicated that she would file additional documents. But the matter was also scheduled to be heard by witness statements, and the Respondent attached the said documents to the witness statements. It was further argued that according to Order 13(1)(1) of the CPC, the production of the documentary evidence shall be produced at the first hearing of the suit. The Respondent’s counsel further submitted that when the Respondent was heard by way of witness statement, the date the witness statement was adopted for consideration by the court, was the first hearing of the suit. It was submitted that the Appellants did not understand what amounted to the first day of hearing of the suit. The case of Petronas Energy Ltd v. Alliance Insurance, Civil Case No. 192 of 2019 was cited to cement the learned counsel’s submission. In that regard, it was submitted that the trial court was right in admitting exhibit DE1 as they were produced on the first day of hearing of the suit. Further, it was the Respondent’s view that the court has discretion to admit a document without compliance of the law if the other party does not object to its admissibility. The case of Ose Power Solutions Limited v. Airtel Tanzania Ltd , Civil Application No. 45/01 of 2022 was cited to augment the submission. As regards second ground of appeal, the Appellants’ counsel submitted that there is no proof that the Respondent remitted the relevant contributions to the NSSF or PSSSF. He reiterated his submissions in support 9 of the first ground of appeal. It was also submitted the payments purportedly made were only to NSSF. The payments as regards members of PSSSF were not proved at all and not discussed by the Respondent in their WSD. The Respondent’s counsel replying to the submissions in support of the 2nd ground of appeal submitted that the court was right in deciding that the Respondent was remitting the contributions to the relevant social schemes. The relevant scheme is the one required to distribute the remissions. It was also submitted that the trial court was right in deciding that the remissions were being made by the Respondent and the Appellants were the one supposed to follow up the matter with the relevant pension schemes. As regards the third ground of appeal, the Appellants’ counsel submitted that the trial court misdirected itself in disregarding the Appellants’ evidence which was watertight. In pages 23 to 24 of the trial court’s decision, the trial Magistrate accepted that the Appellants proved their claims and provided analysis of the same. Surprisingly, the trial court ordered that the Appellants to go and claim from the PSSSF and NSSF which was wrong. The Respondent’s counsel’s opposed the third ground of appeal by submitting that according to section 110 of the Evidence Act, Cap. 6 R.E. 2022, the one who alleges must prove. The court will rely on evidence which is more credible and not otherwise. The learned counsel submitted that the Appellants’ claims in the trial court were TZS 30,901,058/= as contributions supposed to be made to Public Service Social Security Fund (PSSSF) and 83,786,817/= that was supposed to be made to the National Social Security 10 Fund (NSSF), but what was claimed in the plaint was different from what was stated in the witness statements. In the witness statements the amount proved was 82,324,177.4/= Million for NSSF but for PSSSF it was 29, 188,182/= million. This means that the Appellants failed to prove their claims according to section 110 of the Evidence Act (supra) and thus the District Court was right in relying on Respondent’s evidence which was more reliable. As regards fourth ground of appeal, the Appellants’ counsel submitted that the trial court erred in law in not allowing the Appellants to cross examine a Respondent’s witness. Even though the Appellants’ counsel requested to cross examine the Respondent’s witness on the documents tendered and admitted, but the Appellants were denied the right to cross examine. This means that the trial court show that the Appellants failed to exercise their right to cross examine the witness which is not true. The Respondent’s counsel, however, was of a different view and submitted that the case was conducted by witness statements, and he requested that the Appellants be recalled for cross examination purposes. However, the Appellants’ counsel objected and, in the course, he waived his right to cross examine the Respondent’s witness too. In the defence case, we also agreed that the Respondent’s witnesses will not be cross examined. Therefore, both counsels agreed that the witnesses will not be cross examined. As regards the fifth ground of the appeal, the Appellants’ counsel submitted that, the trial court erred in not granting the Appellants’ costs of the suit without assigning reasons. This is according to section 30(2) of the 11 CPC. In page 23 of the judgment, the court agrees with Appellants’ claims but did not provide reason for not granting costs which contravenes section 30(2) of the CPC. It was further submitted that the claims of the Appellants were instituted in 2022, but the purported payments were made in 2023. This means that the alleged payments, if any, were made long after institution of the case which caused ruckus to the Appellants. Hence they deserved costs. In addition to that, it was submitted that the Appellants claimed general damages. Even though the court agreed with the Appellants’ claims, it did not order payments of general damages which was wrong. The Respondent submitted that the ground of appeal is misconceived because the Appellants failed to prove their claim because of varying figures in the plaint and the witness statements. Since they failed to prove their claim, and since issue of costs is a discretion of the court, the court was right in not ordering costs in favour of the Appellant. It was prayed that the appeal be dismissed with costs. After the parties have gone on record as regards their submissions for and against the Appeal, it is now fitting for this court to determine the relevant grounds of appeal. Grounds one and two of the appeal are challenging the evidence relied upon by the trial court that made it land at the conclusion that the Respondent had remitted the Appellant’s pension funds contributions to the relevant pension schemes. The said two grounds of appeal shall be considered and determined together because they are intertwined. 12 According to the record before this court, the evidence in dispute that is the cash bank deposit slips and cheque bank deposit slips, were admitted by the trial court as exhibit DE1 collectively. From the said exhibit DE1 the following matters of facts are not in dispute: 1. The said documents constituting exhibit DE1 were not part of the Respondent’s written statement of defence filed in court. That is the relevant documents were neither pleaded nor attached to the Respondent’s written statement of defence. 2. The Respondent did not file any additional list of documents to be relied upon before the first hearing of the suit as required by law. 3. The said exhibit DE1 was introduced into the Court’s record through the Respondent’s witness statement which was filed on 28/11/2023 well after the Appellants had closed their case. The above facts being categorically stated; it is opportune for this court to review the relevant law as regards documents to be relied upon by the parties. Order VII Rules 14 and 15 of the Civil Procedure Code, Cap. 33 R.E. 2019 (hereinafter ‘the CPC’) provide as follows: 14.-(1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document in his possession or power, he shall produce it in court when the plaint is presented and shall at the same time deliver the document or a copy thereof to be filed with the plaint. 13 (2) Where the plaintiff relies on any other documents whether in his possession or power or not as evidence in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list to be added or annexed to the plaint. 15. Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, if possible state in whose possession or power it is. The above provisions impose a duty on the plaintiff to produce in court a copy of the document which he intends to rely upon when the plaint is presented, or by way of a list of documents to be added or annexed to the plaint. The law also did not give the defendant unregulated liberty in the conduct of proceedings. Order VIII Rule 2 of the CPC provides that: The defendant must raise by his pleading all matters which show the suit not be maintainable, or that the transaction is either void or voidable in point of law, and all such grounds of defence as, if not raised, would be likely to take the opposite party by surprise, or would raise issues of fact not arising out of the plaint, as, for instance, fraud, limitation, release, payment, performance, or facts showing illegality. The above provision was not adhered to by the Respondent in the trial court because her defence was very scanty, and generally, constitutes evasive denial of the Appellants’ claims contrary to Order VIII Rules 3 and 4 of the CPC. Moreover, in trial court the Appellants’ counsel objected to the admissibility of the said exhibit DE1 on the ground that it was not part of the Respondent’s pleading and the said documents were not filed as an 14 additional list of documents before the first hearing of the suit, but were introduced and admitted after closure of the Appellants’ case. Whether that was proper, the answer in available in Order XIII Rules 1 and 2 of the Code which provides as follows: 1.-(1) The parties or their advocates shall produce, at the first hearing of the suit, all the documentary evidence of every description in their possession or power, on which they intend to rely and which has not already been filed in court, and all documents which the court has ordered to be produced. (2) The court shall receive the document so produced provided that they are accompanied by an accurate list thereof prepared in such form as the High Court directs. 2. No documentary evidence in the possession or power of any party which should have been, but has not been, produced in accordance with the requirements of rule 1 shall be received at any subsequent stage of the proceedings unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the court for the non-production thereof; and the court receiving any such evidence shall record the reasons for so doing. The provisions above make it very clear that a party shall produce all documents which he intends to rely upon on the first day of the hearing of the suit, otherwise a good cause should be shown to the satisfaction of the court. In the present matter the documents relied upon by the trial court were neither part of the Respondent’s written statement of defence nor presented on the first day of the hearing of the matter. 15 In determining the first and second grounds of Appeal the timelines as regards presentation of documents in the trial court are vital, and were as follows: 1. The plaint was filed on 5th December 2022, and all relevant documents relied upon by the Appellants were pleaded and attached to the plaint. 2. On 15/12/2022 the order to file a written statement of defence was issued. 3. On 2nd January 2023 a written statement of defence was filed, but did not make reference to any document. The written statement of defence also did not plead any issue as regards payment of the Appellants’ claims. 4. On 11/07/2023 the Respondent applied to file additional list of documents involving Civil Case No. 08/2022 between the parties herein and leave of the court was granted, but an additional list of documents was never filed. 5. The Appellants’ witness statements were filed on 11/09/2023. 6. The 1st hearing of the suit was conducted on 4th October 2023 by the testimony of the Appellants’ witness and the Appellants’ case was closed. At this time the Respondent had filed neither additional list of documents, nor the witness statement. 7. On 15th November 2023, more than a month after the closure of the Appellants’ case, the time within which to file the Respondent’s witness statement was extended for 14 days by the trial court. 8. The Respondent’s witness statement was filed on 28/11/2023 pleading matters of payments which were not pleaded in the written statement 16 of defence. The witness statement also referred to and attached documents that were not part of the Respondent’s written statement of defence and not filed in court as additional list of documents before the first hearing of the suit. 9. On 5th December, 2023 (see page 18 of the proceedings) the Appellants’ counsel notified the court that there is no notice of additional list of documents which has been issued by the Respondent on documents not attached to WSD. The Respondent’s counsel brushed off the Appellant’s counsel concern as trivial and that it was their right to tender the said documents. 10. On 13/12/2023 the Appellant’s counsel objected to tendering of the documents not attached to WSD (as indicated on page 21 of the trial court proceedings) but the same were admitted as exhibit DE1 collectively. In light of the foregoing, it is crystal clear that exhibit DE1 was admitted contrary to the rules of pleadings and procedure. On importance of pleadings, the Court of Appeal of Tanzania in the case of Paulina Samson Ndawavya vs Theresia Thomasi Madaha (Civil Appeal 45 of 2017) [2019] TZCA 453 (11 December 2019) held that: ‘The other remark which we find ourselves compelled to make relates to pleadings. In doing so we cannot do better than reiterate what we said in James Funke Gwagilo vs. Attorney General [2004] TLR 161 whereby we underscored the function of pleadings being to put notice of the case which the opponent has to make lest he is taken by surprise. From that same decision we reiterated 17 another equally important principle of law that parties are bound by their own pleadings and that no party should be allowed to depart from his pleadings thereby changing his case from which he had originally pleaded.’ This position is bolstered by the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Airtel Tanzania Ltd v. Ose Power Solutions Limited Civil Appeal No. 206 of 2017 where the court, on page 21 of the judgment, held that: “In essence, what is obvious is that the trial judge erred in admitting and relying on evidence which was essentially not before the court within the framework of Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC to support the respondent's claims found in the amended plaint.” Moreover, in page 23 of the judgment the court further held that: “Proof of all the claims was dependent on documents attached to the amended plaint means the claims remained unproved. In essence, in relying on the improperly admitted documents, all the claims against the appellant were not proved and had the trial judge considered this fact, she would have found the same” Also the Court of Appeal Decision in Eusto K. Ntagalinda vs Tanzania Fish Processors Ltd (Civil Appeal 23 of 2012) [2013] TZCA 491 (21 March 2013) is relevant, as it was held that the consequences befalling un-pleaded exhibits is to expunge them from the record. Moreover, the cases of Ose Power Solutions Limited v. Airtel Tanzania Ltd, Civil Application No. 45/01 of 2022 and Petronas Energy Ltd v. Alliance Insurance, Civil Case No. 192 of 2019 cited by 18 the Respondent’s counsel also cement the above positions of the Court of Appeal. In light of the foregoing, the said cash and cheque bank deposit slips admitted by the trial court as exhibit DE1 collectively are hereby expunged from the record. After expunging the said exhibit DE1, there is no proof on record that the Respondent had remitted the deducted employees contributions to NSSF or PSSSF. Therefore, the 1st and 2nd grounds of appeal are allowed. The determination of the 1st and 2nd grounds of Appeal also disposes of the third and fourth grounds of appeal. It follows that, since the claimed amount of money as proved by the Appellants in the trial court as deserving to be paid to them remained intact and undisturbed, the Respondent should pay the Appellants the amount as proved in the trial court as follows: TZS. 8,610,000/= to the 1st Appellant, TZS. 5,307,758/= to the 2nd Appellant, TZS. 9,378,000/= to the 3rd Appellant, TZS. 5,174,768/= to the 4th Appellant, TZS. 5,818,708/= to the 5th Appellant, TZS. 5,354,427/= to the 6th Appellant, TZS. 8,171,910/= to the 7th Appellant, TZS. 5,163,290/= to the 8th Appellant, TZS. 4,560,000/= to the 9th Appellant, TZS. 9,509,484.40/= to the 10th Appellant, TZS. 5,000,000/= to the 11th Appellant, TZS. 6,568,000/= to the 12th Appellant, TZS. 9,470,000/= to the 13th Appellant, TZS. 14,793,814/= to the 14th Appellant and TZS. 8,632,200/= to the 15th Appellant. This makes a total of TZS 111, 512,359.40 to be paid by the Respondent to the Appellants. 19 The fifth ground of appeal challenges the decision of the trial court in denying costs of the suits to the Appellants even though they managed to prove their claim against the Respondent, and the trial court did not provide any reason for the same. The same applies as regards general damages which were denied and no reason was given. Commencing with the issue of costs of the suit in the trial court, section 30 of the CPC provides that: (1)Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed and to the provisions of any law from the time being in force, the costs of, and incidental to, all suits shall be in the discretion of the court and the court shall have full power to determine by whom or out of what property and to what extent such costs are to be paid, and to give all necessary directions for the purposes aforesaid; and the fact that the court has no jurisdiction to try the suit shall be no bar to the exercise of such powers. (2) Where the court directs that any costs shall not follow the event, the court shall state its reasons in writing. It is evident from the judgment and decree of the trial court that it was simply ordered that no costs are awarded and no justification was stated. Since the trial court did not provide any reason for not granting costs to the Appellants, the decision of the trial court in that respect is thus vacated and set aside. The Appellants are awarded costs of the suit in the trial court. As regards general damages, the cases of Trade Union Congress of Tanzania (TUKTA) vs Engineering Systems Consultants Ltd & Others (Civil Appeal 51 of 2016) [2020] TZCA 251 (26 May 2020) 20 and Alferd Fundi vs Geled Mango & Others (Civil Appeal 49 of 2017) [2019] TZCA 50 (5 April 2019) are relevant on reasons in awarding general damages. It is a decision of this court that the respondent should pay each Appellant an amount of Tanzania Shillings(TZS) One million (1,000,000/=), which makes a total of TZS 15,000,000/= for all the Appellants, as general damages for the following reasons: i. From the record, it is clear that the Respondent as per the laws regulating pension schemes deducted from the Appellants’ salaries the purported statutory pension contribution, but did not remit the same to the relevant pension funds timely and thus caused unnecessary inconvenience to the Appellants. ii. The Appellants were constrained to make follow ups to the Respondent and the pension funds regarding the said payments which proved to be an exercise in futility. The Appellants were then compelled to institute legal proceedings for recovery of the same which any reasonable person would arrive at a conclusion that the Appellants depleted various resources and time. iii. The Respondent robbed the Appellants their right to use their pension benefits timely. In light of the foregoing this court settles for the following orders: i. The appeal is allowed and the decision of the trial court is hereby quashed and set aside. 21