19920525 TZHC Dar es Salaam

IN THE HtGH COURT OF TANZANIA 1;t 1 DAR. I ES I S.f\.LA;~~ CIVIL ,CASE NO. 7 6 OJ:7 1988 versus NASSORO ALLY MU.ARA.NC:: ••••• , •• ,. • • • DEFE9::)AUT ~1.PIGANQ I J. This• judgment is in respect of tw~• ·)acei::i ·/=-lich have . been combined and heard t·ot:ether. In Civil Case No. 40 of 1988 th~ r,lai-ntiff is Nassoro Ally Makar9ii-i wlri.le Saidi Nusura Masa.10 is the nefendan·~t Their dispµe is over the ownership of a he.use which is i said by the plair..tiff to stand on plot 44 A, Bl6:k M, Sadani Stree~;' Ilala area in Da_r. es . Salaam. The plaintiff ( olaims that the property was part of the estate of the deceased Fa tu Makarani who was his aun-'. and that it has devolved on him. ,. IJt paragraphs 6, 7 ahd 10 of the v,laint the plaintiff.· avers that the defendant's father 1 one Nusura ri:a.sa1:o, had been living in the house as a tenant of the deceased Fatu Makarana. together with the defendantsJ that the defendant continued to li~e in the house even after the death of his father, paying ~ent at the rate of shs.8C/~ per monthl and that the defendant has refused to vaoate the premises despite a quit-notice, ~d stopped ~aymcnt of the rent since February, 1987n Th~ plaintiff is accordipgly seeking a declaration "thaf he is the lawful owner of the suit-property; an order for the evictioh o~' t~e defendant from the house; mesne profits; and costs 0f the suit. In.his writ-ten statement of defence ·the defenda~t . Saidi 11usu.ra Ma~o denies the allegation about t1'.e ~;enano±et • . i I I •" 1 -c,, .• 4 • • I I') t'1. / 2 He claims that the sui+-propefty belonged to his father Nusura Masaio who died in 1982r and that the property has passed to him intEstate .• Mr. Kashl.mbugu, ::_earned adv~cate 1 has appeared for the plaintiff Nassorc il..lly. Iviakarani while Mr .. Rntashobya and later Nr, Semgal· we, learned adv.ocairess? have appeared for the def endaht Sa ..:.di Nusura Mas~l.©, In the other ~rse, i.e. No, 76 of 1988r the plaintiff is Idarousy Alawi. He has sued Nassoro Ally Makarani, contending that the subject-matter of the first case has been transferred to him for a valuable consideration by the defendant Nass:>ro lllly Makarani and the other heirs of 1atu Makarani, and cc1mplaining that the defendant has failed to give pof;session of the property to him. He is asking for an ord2;r of specific performance or, in the alternative, a sum of shs.968,COO/= being. a refund of the purchase price. He is represented by Mr. Marando~ learned advocate. 0 Nassoro ~lly Makarani has not contested the suit. In actual fact .:iG acknowledged the substance 0£ the p pleadings of the 2laintiff Idarousy Alawi. Judgment was thus entered for the plaintiff and the latter has obtained a decree and sJugit to execute the same. Saidi Nusura Mas~l•~ the defenQant in the first case has however made an object:Lon to th0 decree, repeating what he has stated in the first case and impugning the ~ransfer of the property to Id1rousy Llawi by charging fraud on the part of Nassoro Al:_y Mak;_.,rc1ni. The main p ..:Jin-,; at issue in these r..a~ters is who is the lawful holder cf the subje:1t-matter of the suits, and that is the onJy issue tha~, has been recC'rrl i1_ :: havP 0 however since come to realize that for a proper d~ter- mination of the ma-;.tLrs in controver,rr in thes~ oases it is appropriate to fro.me two additional issues, and I need not point our that order 14 rule 510 of the '>ivil. Procedure Code 7 1956 1 )er:rai ts mG to do so. ThG additional iss•es are :- 2. Whatht.r the disposition cf the nigh-ti of occupancy to Idarousy 1~1awi was fraudElent, as alleged by So.idi_Nusura rv:aSai..:-1 ; and ... . /3 3 3. T0 what reliefs are the parties ~nti tlf l, . The evidence whi n is nnt in dispute sh·ws that Doth the deccascrt Fatu Maka.cani and Nusura Masalo ha.:-l rude adjourning houses at [ a-1.ani Street. lfac G'...·,>-;:.:- Ally Makarani J elected to give no ev~dence and to call no witness on his eehalf. So his aliet ..1,tion that Nusura Masalo r.n~ his son Saidi Nusura M~s~io.were tenants in the property in .tispute, which, asp ,inte1 out, is traversed by Saidi. Nusura MRsalo, has nJt been established. Ir.~ee:. from ·what will he dem0M 1;rate--:. later in thi...; ~udgment, I tz-~0 driven to c_onclu·:~0, -;jha t the allegation ir:., a total iie Also not in c~.ispute is that in tl:.8 si:. __ _ _,b..:- National Housin.: · C. rpora tion; herein a:f.'tc, :- 11 the NHC, 11 • · •evised and imi;::·_em:mte~1 a ''.Slum Clearance -'-i~.1. Mortgage Scheme 11 unc1.er whic1 it lent money to holc.arJ ,-f plots for purpose of co~struction of residential houses. The terms of the loant-. were pret·ty soft. T:r, 0 :noniay wR s no_t however paid out directly to the borro,1e1 ;..:,,_ The NRC undertook and car.i·ie{ out the construction of tt.e houses ani the loans 1.-.:Gr.E:. c:.isbursed on the constructiu:::... The loans and the little interest accrl"\ed thereon had to re repaid "hy the r orr-owers in monthly inst'."'..lr.:ents 2.s specified in th~ m~rtgage agreements~ Ar a security a ~orrower mortgaged to the NEC tl.;.e right · f O'·i:-up8.r.1.cy over his plot and th0 ntilding erected or to be erectel thereon, and he there~y depcsited his titie deed with the IBC, ... Ilala was o'.lle of the arear, that wcr:d coYered :. y the Scheme, and the rec· rds tendered in these cases ac.ow that the facility waa ex~ended to the late Nu~ura M~.s~lo and the late Fatu Makar~ni. Each depositec. a letter :)f offer of right of occupa1..i.~ J with the NHC 1 ~hougL o:... __ .. .t'~~·" Fatu Ma.karani never signed any mortgage agreeme~t~ The plo;ts of the two bo·CTowers were duly developed, Each had a six-room house erJeted on his or her plot, a.nd each paid the stipulated loan restalments ~, the I~~l~ Branch of' the Natj.onal Hou£•ing Corporation. . •••• I 4 4 The case for :3aid~. Nuaura Mc,soko is that. the suit- property is compriseJ 1.n plot No. 44, Block M1 Sadani Street.. The property :;elonged to his fe,ther Nusura Maaa.iQ ,.. He ·(Saidi) wafi born a: .J. bred in the house that his father had built on that plc ,; r.nd which was known .as house No.4, Fatu Makarani once l~veQ next door on plot No,44A in a house known as No. 2 The two plots ioe• plots No. 44 and No. 44-A were later e .:~alJama ted in the sense that plot No. 4411. was merge.1 : 11to plot No, ,t4. This enlarged plot ' was reallocate1 to his f~ther and Fatu Makar~~i vacated the land. His f,:,tr.: ."r;· s. h·:::use as well as Fatu 1 r- '-vere pulled down and a new h0~r3 was ' erected. for his father in their places and this ne◄.: 1.:.cuse was known as I: J. 2 Saidi Nusu:L'3. :·~t~so,1-:i has :;_;roduced a ::1.ost of receipts, exhibi_1_02,. iss•1e 1::,sr the. l'TEC in acknow1r:.:dgment of the 1 payments of th"' l ..:::,:,1 in,st:'.li.:,onts me.do by his fat~1,er or on his behalf in ".'Gspect of the house, He ad:u:1i tted however < that a few receirts in that bundle appear to be in relation to house No. 4, · '· :He has brouf:1t one witness~ Mohar;:ed_Narjlliin@, who was un_disputably one ~ f the tenants in the hquse ir.. dispute, · lhe material evidance cf this witness is (a) that he was ·~ '.tenant in the nJw hou~e for a space of 11 years and f · months i.e. fro~ lctober, 1)68 tq January, 1990; (b) that the tenancy was 6 1:},.nted to hi:m by Nusura Masai.a and he paid the rent tJ 1 tsura Mar-1ruo :=i.rnl, upon his• death, to his son Saidi HuSU"'3. Ma;._;(Eilo; and (c) that there was an occasion when ITass·ro ~lly Makarani brou~ht back a demand note, ezhibjt C7r to him with a very sugcef:1tive explanation., which j s recapi tn,tula ted hereunder. The der:1and not '3 called u1. arrears o.:: land rAnt in respect of plot , ~;.~,.~ It is d:si.ted 13/12/ 6') and was a addressed to "Fo.ta M'.],k_:1,rani, House Ne~ 2 Sadani Street.," . . It was first brJu~1t ta the witness at house No. 2. He did not know F2~tu ila.kar'lnis b-ut on making inquiries he lef!rned that sh'; ~fras living in the neighbourhood ..... /5 5 a1 Kasulu Street, house Ne. 3le He dispatched the demand note' lo that h:;use. 11. few hours le.ter Nassoro ..illy Makarani brought it ' be.ck .:1,nd af _ od hir.1 to pass it on to 1;usura ~il'O He (Nassoro) disclose 1 to hin, and this is the heart o{'"· · • · ·· ' the matter, that ir. t.18 past Fn tu M3.karani and Nusura Mase.lo were next-door neighl:ursp Fatu living in house No., 2 and Nusura in house No. ,- ; th3. t the :t-JrIC demolished their houees and then built only one house on the two plots for Nusura Ma_salo; and tho.t Fai J.. 1,1-::-1.kars.ni vacated the plct arn9- went to live in a house -hat the HHC had built for her at· Kasulu. Street; and there iJ no rJispute that the NHC did so. The , I testmony of !namersa Ka:g._~~ goes, some way to confJrm that plots 44 and 44~ WJre consolidat~d. The witness haa tendered exhibtC.1 tthich cont::dns several rent c:::-,rds in' ree.feCt cf hous; -J ~. 2 kc;:- t by the NHC Ilal8, Branch. He has told the C-1..U'_; th2,t hcuse No. 4 Block M Sadani .,tret ia unknown t c, the Br0.nch. Ido.rousy ~,.1£ -..,,i, like ifo.ssoro i·,.11y Hakarani, has not given evidence; lJ.t he h~s call~d three witnesses. The first witness waE. Ui -;l).01L1.s NJI~J.. a documentation officer with NHC Headquq2. t8rS ,. This witness , h£tA asserted that Fatu Makarani is still th0 h.il~1er c,f )lot No. 44L., Sadani Street, together with hou~c No. 2 th~t stands thereon. He has also asserted the. t P::. t _·[ has fully 1/J.id ::iff the NHC lo'ln in respect of th?t h~~se. The basis cf his assertions 9! suppositions are 1-he L.2, torio..ls th1.::. t ar0 contained in the file exhibit RLl:• The witness s~ated furthar that Nusura Masnlo is the holde~ of house No, 4 which 3tands en plot No. ~4 and that Nusura has ye·, to c::-'liDlGte tl:e rep2.yment cf the loan. • . - . . -rt PlQts 44 and 4,:;.A &a.d,a.n Stref' He did not know, h wovor i thn. t, f!!-n"<!e Deen ams.1__:,,,n2..~ea;- The second wi·: ;·L,3S w:,1.~ .F.ndhi~_;l1_1_sangi, an assistant Land Officer at Ilaln, ~ccordinc to his testmony, plot 44 A, SadQni Street, still exists. He too·1 does not know whether th2t pl~·t hr,o osc:m rr:erged into plot No. 44._ ....•• I 6 The third witness was Waziri Musa Sefu;· His bald evidence whs that Fatu 1s houhiNo, 2, was d~moli~hed by the NHC and in i t:a pla,_;e the NHC built another house fo:! her on the same plot, He did not ~ay how he came to be certain that the nw~"~liouse was built for Fatu Makarani. ~ _:t • I have digeBted the material evidence in these caSil•· ' ... I am.!!a1isfied, and J. find it ae a fact, thut t>ere w~~ ~ .,1' only one hou'-e built by the NHC on what used-to be plo'ts •• ' f, . . . . 44 and 44A, Sadani f,treet, _ One of the two former holters must have . relinguishei his or her .plot at the time of th@ redevelopment of th2 plots .._ · I accept the evide:·.ce that the - evidence that-- 'ihe two plots were arnalg:amate(l, though no body at ~,he NE<t and larn1 office see·m.0 to know anything atout it. Folio 3 in BXhlbit ~--4.~ dated 13/10/~7•- tends to conf ()rm E J.ch amalgarna tion. That __f.ol°i:. says - y~e,~ pl•t No. 44 J."i. 1ti~S r) el •-::ted bv t....~~n:•j:i"ian Drawing N~J}40~/365. I cannot avo:id the impression that the NHC officials have ·not applied due tiligence to the business of keeping the records in rGspect of the subject-matter of these ~uitt, ' fr" a sai commentary o"n the performance of Guch a vital institution. Thrre has been a mix-up and the level of 1.isorder is h::.gh and alapming. Some of the documents . tendered before t:1is court purport to show that two _}fhetus_e•'I" . still exist on th3 lar-.d and t;_at Nusura Masalo haR paid loan inctalmentg ~or both houses No~ 2 and No. 4, Sadani Street, while it :·.s not true, Others have been misfilet. For instance a eDl--Y of folio 24 in exhibit R4, which is supposed to be Pai. ·.1 Makarani' s file P appear~ ,as folio 34 in exhi'Q.lt C~ whici is said to be Nusura Masalo's file. Still, most o: the clearance receipts in respect of the sui t-propcrty : .re in the name of the deceased Nuaura Maealo. It is morl; or less the same with the R~nt Card~ kept by the tHC Il~la Branch, It i~ hardly conceivable that Nusura Masal~ could have paid the monet for ~-house that did not belong to himo •·,. Saidi llusura'~asalo has prodnced a tenant in t~e 1:l.ouse in disput..::; to st~.pp("'rt h?-,lll claim;., in marked contre~t with NaGsoro Ally l1akar&ni. The tena:r_t, a:._ shown,< has narrated how Na':sso·,•o Ally Makarani brough"'Cback tl:.e demand note and ho.v he (Nassoro) recalled the merger of ' ... /7 7 plot No. 4.4A into plct 10. Ip+ :cmd the conseq_·1e.ncer- of that mergor.. That e·vic, :::mco standr, ¥tncontroyerted aJ1d. in the .iight of scetio: ..3 19 and 20 (L) of the Evidence Act, 19r:.7 Narscro I s ·1arrative to thG wi tncP'i-'. c:o:nsti tute·9 1 (tn acknowledgmcrit on i :1e part of Nas.,oro that the property in dispute -::,cl:,Lg to ·';b:; dcceaucd N"ur:ura Easalo. Folio 15 i:--1 -~xm--0.i.t RJ. sugge0ts th.-~.t it was around January, 1987, that la2scra Ally Makarani came to discover that the property i~ dispute belonged to his aunt Fatu Me.karani, maybe after he had cHscovered ~the confusion at the NHC. 1i.nd it i$ probablt7 significant that Nassorc Ally. ~karani .:old. the p copertT to Idarousy Alawi soon thereafter •. It may als.o be ob~e:cved the, t the same folio bears out tb:e averment of Saiii :Ku:--ura IVlasalo in paragraph 3 of th-e :Writte• statemont of defence that Nasaoro a11y Makarani did not. include the ~roper~~ in the ustate l~ft behind by Fatu Makarani in the ad1:1inistration proceeding, he institut·ed in the primary court at Ilala. That averment has not been traversed in the r'(iply. As a rul•3 I he.vo, to 6.ccide the first iiwsue on preponde- r 8 nc~ of-evidence. In my considered judgment I am s~tisfied that the· evidence rcl(:·:;-3.nt theroto is c+early w:eighted in fav9ur of Saidi Nu..s·,1.ra Ma~alo. In the result I find that t};le pr~perty lawfuliy bf-:,lon 6 s to Saidi Nusura Ma~alo •. In rel£ttibn to tho s~::c9nd issue, I nnders-tanC, that there ie in .law ~·general . )rosa.mp.tion of goo<l faith in human tra.Jt~- •- aetions, very sind.la: · to the 1)r0sumption of i-:Q.no~ence 'i.n . eriminal cases. 7he ~urden cf proving everr speoiea of bai faith (~.g.Yfrm . . d) js :)11 the perrion alleging that or,ecie~- of. bad faith, and t,-e sottle~l rule is that he mu:.t do so strietly, I fi:10.; :in "':r..Y as s::;rssrncn t 1 that Nassoro ally Ma.ka~ani acted in frail.d vzhcn ho made the disposition of the property to Idarc,c7 Alawi. Tht3re mt,st th,j:rEfc re be, j ·':dg"mm t for Saidi NusuraMasala and Idarousy .rt.lawi :'in. the, f al.lowing terms: - (a) "~ dc-:;la~·at:Lo:n that the subject-matter of thouc _p: 'OCC) ecUi;igs 1-Jclonged to the late Nusur::. Lasalo and that the right of Saidi Nusur.:.t Lasalo, his heir, f!JV€r the property should. ·:J_e preservod; · •• · ••• / 8 · - 20 - Tb.ore is 3uffi0iont ovic.on~t!mt L.P .o. :Ho. :C 184309 ires J:)l'Cscntocl to DL".JIOJ:TI Pil:OMJI (PH3), tho Fin..."'..noo Ua,nc.ccr of Tcmzc.nin Uosiory Lt.c1 •. for sui ;~ily of soolm to tl:.o .."i:J:!oy as cllcc;cd b7 ~c pl'OSG~.S ·of the L.r>.o ... TJ.mt L.P.o .. m:..s I>J:'Oc:.ucoc.~ in oO'Ul!'ii {0~1i1)it P1). 'Phoro ,ia fur.'tho~ at.~f fio.i,ont ovic.'.c:.100 thr,t thnt L.P.o. l~cl not oriGino.:tod t',ttoo the Ministey >f Dofo11001· ICJ/JC.:IBI MllEXlU (Pvf5) C1'.1 or.rployoo ~f tho lu.nisp of Fi1'lC11COt· :C)21 cs Snla.c.o tc::::~ifioc1 t!:nt tho L.P.o. uc,s t'1.10nc.»t.; thooo c.1.ton to tho ~l!inist:i:.1 of ITon,1· :h. This :f'o,et. Whioh I· cocoJ)t cs truo js oon.t'iruoC. 1)y tho tosti.Qony of. T.::.JlL'~IJ1~ lITllIIUDtJ (Pl-14), then c.n oaploYQo of tho r.I,ini.f>t.,.-:.· of II~clth, now c ?cti.l'cc. offioo:r, invo'ltv:i.JJG hitl,Jolf in J.)1'1~40 b ~ s , ,-r:: o stC':toc. tl:c-~ th..~t 1)<..'\t..-liiouln.r L.P .o • .hr.¼!. boon c loo..f tL-oo l,if .o, Dock No. 104301 to 1043: ·o <t·f!iich h..-:1,cl hocn sent to tho ?-h,rcnzc, Zoim1 Officar · of tl:o m.nisi.I'y of IIoc..: th. I fUl'tl:.or oocoi1t a.s truo thct no!thor • ◄:sa1 ot ti::.o c,1):)Cllcnts ho.c'.:. on 25tl:. ,:mly, 1990 boon to the offico of Fd3. I aa.lco -tJ:io fine.inc on tl:o ovic once of PW3 w!:ich I oocol)t v.s t]:auo. X ~Ol?t- t!:o OIV'ic1onoc of Cl?l • l, JIIIDDT MTAK.A ( Pi'T1 ) tl:o.t 1)oth ll.p~llmzp troro orrostcc:. r:i; tho l,l11Cuisos of tho Tc.nzc.nic IIos'tiory Ltd. in tllo IJI'QOOOS r,f tcld.ne .:J.m:',y oc-.,i,tons of aooks uL :.ch ,ro'..i."O snic. t_o l;o uo,ntcc1 or ordoroc!. b;v- tho : ~ . I reject, cs o.d the t1:1ic,l r-1C,e,i.~~tc ocol: Q.J.1D.Ollcntts dotoncc · thr.t i;ho 1)olioo ho.c1 1?iokol cc.cl: of tl:ou not d tho T.o.nr;r-,nio, Ilosiory i.,a. prooiaQS. 'l!horo is no onuso fo:~ c1-oir1c tl:ia. Pli1 and rir2, C 9507 :Dot. Cpl, John Cl'O stroncoDs to oc,cl:. of tho n:;_)pollc,nts, tl;.c:;:,o is no ror.son for tnl.k:fuc lies. c,ev,inst thco. Tl:.oso wc1,o t'.rl"O □toc".. cs tosti.fioc. by thoo ntl, tho ~;c,nic IIosio.ry Ltc'1.. locclin:; socks which tl:.oy l:.c.c1 cot on prosontceion of ~1 L.P,o. ul:ioh ~ 1:c.vc boon ~m1cll.lontly obtr-i11cc.1.. Tho O.j_)i'.lOl~-nts l~c. not boon sent there by the li.ri.zy"J inclccd 1)y their o-wn toat:Lnonio&, 1¥lithor ,ms ct tho ti□c stc-.tionoc.'. i.'1 ln'r' cs S0,le,..'\i.1,. :Ela.oh of tho pc,:tio- Pont U('..S on o.otiw ].)Cl'tici:::"mt in this uitlnwf\ll coil.• ' I soc no oorit in oc..oh of tho c.,:;_):;_,oc..ls • Tl:o oviclonoo wn.s su.ffio.i.o• 'io founc1 tho corrviotions. Tho t::i."ic,l r.1..-icisti,n.to Imel IIi-'<>DOrly c'!.irootod his oi.nc'.. to it. naoh of tl::.c ll,l)j_)OC,lo is eisoisscc.'.. Tl:o C..j_)l)Ocls t',GQ,inst BO~onoos C'3X) also cJ.soi,ss~d. IlC'.ot. of tho c.l)j)Ollcnts ooro tlmn coaor;,oa. iif tn •Qltj.."-lit;v 1tli.o~oro, eccl: of tho t,.,o· c,1)1)00.ls is clisoissoc1. in its onttt"o1,1e .£@.:ans Rub_on.--,, 3·• Mr. Munuo, Ste.to Attorney far tho Rcl)Ulllic c- ··--. . . ~c two O.l)j_)cllc.~ts pros?~• ~ · ,. ._ ~) . J'itc1c11cnt c:.olivoroc;.. ~ , ' ~ ° ' - . _ ""'" Y:!ITYL·-~:J-IL .. JUIOE 25/ 5/ 1<;/)2 TtO:i."'C is J1.lffj oiont ovic'..?nco_,,,t!in.t L.:P- .o. Mo. JI: 184309 lTC..S )?l'CSCnto<l to DL'J;I01TI PililMJI (PW3), tho Fine.nee Mcn..1.Ccr of '.):~cnin Ifosiory Li.c1. f ,,r SUj ~}ly of sooks to tl:o .ii~ on cl~ococl by tllq ~son;ors 0£ tho 1.:e.0.-, Thc:t L.F.o. uc.s pt-ocuooc'. il-1 <>01Jlf't, {~u.1:,it P1), 'Phoro ' , ia fur;'tho::c a,,.,: fioiont ovic~cncc tlmt tl:t\t L.P.o. faicl hot e>ricinotod t.l.'oo tho lli.nist:'ey' ,f Dcfcnoo: lCJJJCLZI MllOOU (Ptf5) an or.r,1?loyoo ;f tho 1-liniBF of Finc.nco, =~ os Solo.c.n tcntifio-c1 t~_:nt tho L.P.o. nr.s l'.r.lO?JOJt.; thooo Gil'On to tho -'1inistry of IToo,1· h. This- fr.ct. whioh I cocol)t cs truo ~ confm.1ot by tho tost.i.rl()ey of. 111.t.JlI.'W. lTY..:UlUJJU (PU4), thon c.n Otll;)lO~O of tho Mini.st.,,,~- of IIoo.lth 1 now c ?ctirccl of'fi~ in'V'f>lvi.n{; 11.ir,pol.f in J,WiV040' 1>lW,1l0,Ss, u:.: o stl:',toc. tl:.c-li thc.:t: j)('.?fii-OUlci.:i: L.P .o. hv,c!. ooon v, lca.f t»()o LeP .o, nook 1To, -104301, to 1043: -o 'tiliich. lmd hoon sent to tho Mm,.nzc Zooo1 - Offic,or of hl:o hinist.ry o:f IIoc,: th. I f'Ul'tl:or c.oco:,.1t a.s true tho. t ot tl:o c.p:,)ollcnt~ hc.c"'.. on 25tl: .'.:ul;y-, 1990 coon to the offico of PW3t ?\0- I onko -t.1::.if! fine.inc on tl:c ovic 011cc of' PW3 wl:ioh I o,ocovt as tl:luo • ;r ~Ol?t. t!:o ovic"tonoc of Cpl. 1, J'".JIDDT M'l'lUCA ( 1'1'71 ) t~:c,,t 1)oth o.pj,X) 11'1.nts troro vrroatoc1 r.t tho irccrlisos of the To..nzc,1'lic-, IIosto1'¥ Ltd. in tho prooosa cf· trJQ.nC 0,lrc,y or.1>tons of sooks u!:, ·.ch ~TO:i."O sc.ic"t to 1;o 1mntocl or ordorocl b;y- tho 1~. I rojoot1 cs c!id tb.0 t:tiic,l rJ..,"'.C,i.~tc ocoI: O.Dl~llcnt•-s clo;f'onco . 'it.a,t ;ho, l)Olico ha.cl pickod ecol: of thcr.i ll2.t d tho Ta.ru:;r,11ic llosiory Lte,. - prooisos. 'l!horc is no ocuso fo:.' cloi1,c- tl:is. PW1 encl PW2, C 9507 Dot. Cpl, John r,;ro stJ.toncol's to oc.ol: of the n:,pcllc.nts; thoro is no :rcc-.son for,, ♦c-.Jldslc lioa t:'.[J',inst thoo. Tl:osr-: wc:i:-o crrcotoc,. cs tostifioc1. by thoo ntt tho ~c,2,~-:c-,nic.. llosio,;izy Ltci... loc.clin:; sockS nhich tl:cy l:.c,cl cot on prosont~io11 of 4ll L,P ,o. nl:ich ~ l:c..vo 0001:· fr-c.11c11lontly obtt,inocl. Tho C?.?j,)Oll,.?,n-bs cc.cl not bqen sent there by tho _J:,.:rDy; indeed 1)y their ot-m tostioonio&, nlithor ,ms ct tlic tine stctiono(i_ in Da.r os Snlr,nn. 1:1.,•1,oh of tho pc;i:-tio~ Pan\ V!'.S o.n active pcl:'tici:,c.nt in .this unlmr.flul oot. I aoo no oo:rit in ecol: of tho !',:..J:;0cJ.s • '111:c cvidcnoo l'f(l.£1 suffiojom '\o f9U11cl the convictions. Tho trie,l DD,eictl'nto hr..d p:i."'Ol)orly c:irootcd bis' oind to it. Bo.oh. of tl:!.C C.l):poc.lo is disoisac('-• Tl:o C.i)pocls C?.C,ninst aontonoos n-ro oJ.so eisni.aaQ6. , Eo:ci: of the np;cllcnta DOl'O them COSfcxt"'gOa. iie tn ,t01'b.,.,.,,l1ty ·th.ol'Q.foro,., ecol:. of tho t,.;o CI?)oo.la is c.isrJissod in its o~, - JUIGE . Qst:cns Rubru::ir,, J •- _. Mr. Munuo, Stc,te Attorney for 'llhc -ii.no C.lJ:i_,ollcnts p:i:eson-.., , •'J'uc1Q1oht c'-clivcrcci.. '