19940713 TZCA Dar es Salaam

- _..,,.,,.. ,, ..~ . --.·. '.. )_fN"{J~.-~C~illl'.(:,9,t··ti?fti,"•o~· ~!ll'JZA~l:A ·.. . .AT ·DAR ''ES 'SALAAM . - ~ i" ., ·It . - . -·--: X~S~'!Q.~..,. -~~~•.,_J½!~~TiAti!,_,LA~, ·An<i._LUBUVAL J .A.) , CIVIL Af>.?EAL NO. 30 OF 1993 · BETWEEN INCA.1:t TANZANIA LL'lfITED . . . . . . . . . . • . . • APPELLANT .. AND . . M/S 1VIAGUJU FAi-lr-1 LIMITED . lRE,,POND."NTS 0 1 CO-OPERATIVE' & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK~ - ..... (Appeal from the decision of the High ·court of Tanzania a_t Arusha) , ·. O'!C?.hai~~,_.r.) . . dated the 14th d~y·of Mayj 1992 ' ) .->-~ ✓ in ..~ r: ~. Arusha Ii{c_ Civil Ca~e No. 8~ of _c 1989 JUDGBJ.\IBNT OF THE COURT ,._. -----·---· --------·-·----. - . ... , \, Thi·s-appeal arises from the decision of the High Court (~_cha1ia\ ·--!.) allowing the respondents' claim based on a breach~oi•contract for the sale of goods. The background . . to the c?-se may.be summarized -l:;lr-iefly as follows: Under a ~~., · wr'itten contract, Incar T·anzania Ltd. Arusha, the a 1Jpellant in this appeal, agreed· tq s~ll a set of farming implements to· the respo~dent company:"-.· The imple·ments consisted of a fiat tractor, a harrow-and a.chisel plough. The contract was conclude·d at Arusha and delivery of the equipment was " .I!!'; • ~o be effec1ed in D~r -~s Salaanl.. 'The c.o.o.tract price was paid partly through a loan of Shs. 4,000,000 from the Co-operative and ,mral Development Bank (C.R.D.B.), the •..• /2 2 second respondent, and partly from the respondent's own resources in the sum of 3hs. 202,0JO/=. After the contract price was paid PW. 1 , ilanagii11$ Director of the respondent company, travelled to Dar es Salaam to take delivery of the implements there only to find that the items were not ready for collection. There was yet to be done pre-delivery service to these implements and a customs clearance certificate in respect of them was yet to be obtained. It w~s not possible to register the tractor before a customs clearance certificate was obtained in respect of the equipment by the appellant company. The respondent was asked to go and come back on a · number of times but on each occasion he found the implements not yet ready for collectiqn. Out of frus,tration he threatened to rescind the contract and demanded a refund of the purchase price which he had paid at Arusha but in vain. Thereafter the apP@llant company alleged that PW.1 decided to- take delivery of the i.nplements despite the absence of a cµstoms clearance certificate~ P.W.1, however stated that a new arrangement was reached whereby he \'las to travel back to Arusha and the appellant company was to trans- port the implements to its Arusha branch where he (f>W.1) was to take delivery of the saj1e. The trial judge believed the version of PW .1 ; we think ~1e v1as enti t.led so to do. Again the appellant company asserted that on PW.1's own request, it took the implements to the railway station, Dar es Salaam and loaded them on a railway wagon chosen by PW.1 himself, for transportation to Arusha. The consig~~ent so loaded included a trailer sold by the appellant to one •••• / 3 Mr. Mario Gikas of Arusha. The appellant claimed that before PW.1 left Arusha for Dar es Salaam, Mr. Gikas had arranged with him (PW.1) to transport his trailer to Arusha. On the basis of such arrangement, the appellant went on, it (the appellant) handed over the trailer to PW .-1 in Dar es .Salaam who duly made his ovm arrangements to transport it together with his own implernents to Arusha •. PW.1, however, denied completely making the alle,5ed arrangement with 1-'ir. Gikas, adding that at the time material to this suit Mr. Gikas was not an acquaintance of his. Yet;Mr. Gikas was not called in support , of the alleged arrangement with PW.1 for the trans- port~tion of his trailer. According to PW.1, however, it·is the appellant company which undertook to transport the implements to Arusha, but as he was anxious that the _implements should reach Arusha as soon as possible he dJd. a number of things, on being asked by the appellant company·, in order to facilitate or speed up the process. Thus for instance he was sent to look for a railway wagon on which to load the implements, although the one he found proved to be too small and the appellant had to look for another one as an alternative. He also paid the charges for hiring the wagon and for the guard to escort the goods on a promise that t.hese payments altogether amounting to Shs. 81,220/= would be refunded to him by the appellant's office at Arusha. Upon r,1akin:.; those payments he signed a consignment note which shows the sender of the goods to be Incar Tanzania Ltd •. Dar es Jalaam and the consignee to be Incar Tanzania Ltd. i.\.rusha. The consignj~ent note also . shows •••• / 4 the goods to have been loaded by the sender. flvI .1 took the consignment note to the a:1pellant' s office in Dar es Salaam. There he was instructed to talw the said consigrunent note toget~er with the cash receipts in respect of payment for transport and escort charges and the contract documents to the appellant's office at Arusha where the implements would be delivered to him. He did as instructed. Upon handing over the documents to the appellant's office at Arusha he was asiced to .go away and that the office would take delivery of the iinplements, register the tractor in the name of his company and C.t{,D.3. and t:1en deliver it to him. In .the meantiine PW .1 on behalf of his company entered into a contract to plough 200 ·acres of land for one Mr. K. Patel. He did this in anticipation of the new tractor because althougn he had seven other tractors these were old and were not enough to carry out the ploughing contract. The ·1earned trial judge accepted PW.1's account in preference to the claim by the appellant that PW.1 received the implements in Dar es 3alaam and took it upon himself to transport them to Arusha. :-re found that it is the appellant company which sent the implements in question together with Mr. Gikas's trailer as a single dispatch consigned from the appellant's off ice in Dar es Salaa .. 1 to its Arusha office. Following the handing over of the documents by PW.1 at the appellant's office in Arusha, a representative of the appellant's office there visited the ~ailways office at Arusha a number of times to inquire if the consignment had arrived, and at least on one occasion he also telephoned ... ./5 . - - Iii - 5 their head office in Dar es Salaam which conficmed that the goods had been dispatched. Subsequently he was informed by the ~ailways office Arusha that the wagon carrying the consignment had sustained an accident at a place called Hedaru, a long distance away from Arusha. He drove all the way to Hedaru to view the scene for himself without asking PVl.1 to accompany him or informing him about the accident. He noticed that the tractor had been damaged in the course of the accident. After the consignment had reached Arusha, the railway authorities duly advised tne appellant as the consignee to collect the goods. The appellant did so, after showing some reluctance, and also paid demurrage charges arising from the delay in collecting the goods. The appellant then asked '?'!I .1 to take delivery of the implements but according to the appellant ·pw.1 refused to do so because of the d~naged tractor. The da~age was estimated at Shs. 300,000/= being the cost of purchasing the necessary spares, plus about a half that a:nount being labour charges. P1) .1 was asked -to bear the cost of buying the spares while the appellant would bear the.labour charges. F'l.1, however refused and insisted on replacement of the tractor, and since no agreement could be reached, the respondent brought this s.uit alleging breach of contract and asking for the following reliefs:- ;i ( i) The plaintiff claims specific per..:. formance by the defendant of t:·1e plaintiffs written contract to deliver the said TtlACTOR HJ\r"<ROW and CHISEL PLOUGH as specified in the contract marked annexture 'A'. • ... I 6 6 (ii) Damages for loss of use of the said farm implements by the plaintiffs at the rate of Shs. 20,000/= per day from the day of none delivery to the date of judgement. ( iii) Dama:..;es for loss of contract of ploughing 200 acres between M/s Magugu Farm Ltd. and Niru Patel totalling at the rate of Shs. 2,000/= per acre totalling Shs. 400,000/= see attached copy ~f contract between i'-'f/s Magugu Farm & Niru Patel. (iv) Costs of this action. (v) Interest at court rate in damages and cost·s from till payment in full • • (vi) Any otner relief or further relief as the nature of this action may admit.;; Upon finding that the a:9pellant had failed to deliver the implements in accordance with the terms of the contract, the trial judge gave reliefs set out in the decree as follows: "It is ordered that the plaintiff's are - ---------·-·---- . ---- . ·-. entitled to, and are a,i,1arded the following reliefs: (1) Specific performance, if the same is feasible, plus general and special damages, including costs and interest as claimed and set out herebelow; or .... /7 ·-*.- -•••-~... •J•·' _ _ , --- - - ..I!. - - - : . . . . - - (2) RefW1d of 3hs~ 4,283,420/= to the 1st plaintiff (Pv✓ ~1) being prepaid price, plus the difference between the prepaid price and the full market price of the goods as at 15:s~s9 with interest at bank rate from the date of payment of the purchase price on 24.7.89 till final payment. Thereafter if Fw~1 finds it reasonable to purchase similar goods elsewhere because the type and make of the goods (New Fiat tractor 100 hors~ power)_ he had contr~cted for is or may not be available, he can do so with the money refW1ded to him, excluding the interest on the purchase price or principal sum and he may charge the defendant company with the difference, if any, in price; and (3) Specia~ ~amages under head (ii) of the reliefs. These da~ages are to be computed in the following manner, that is to say ~QLQQO/= per day from 15.8,.39 to.31.12~89. And thereafter for each succeeding year till the date of full payment, computation shall be 3hs. .?.Q.,_QOOj = per day from July, to December, respectively. It is considered that during tlie months of April to June annually, · ploughing almost ceases in Arusha zone, and transportation dwindles, hence the reduction of 10,000/= from the 20,000/= daily rate earnings for that period. Also the.re will be a deduction of 40% from the total sum to be realized under this head to cater for mitigated damages and for service of the tractor; and . ·, < ' ..- '~t .... /8 3 (4) Special damajes in the amount of T.Shs. 400,000/= for loss of ploughing co::1.t.cact (:~::h. P. 7) as ii1dicated under head (iii) of the reliefs, however, less 50}~ to cater for :ni tigated da1!1a.;es; and (5) Costs to be taxed; and (6) Intere3t on da~ages and costs at court rate and in the appropriate scale effective from the date of filing the suit on 7.10~89 till full payment; and ( 7) General darna;;es which deem fit and j~it to aisess and award basing on the qevaluation of our Tanzania shilliI'I/f-J>egged to the US Dollar and the resultar:it inflation rate. In 'i 989 w;.1en PW~ 1 paid the purchase price to the defendant co;npany, about T~Shs.110 wa~ to the dollar .• Todate the current exchange rate is about T.ShS.302/= to the dollar~ If my ;i1athe:,1a-cical calculations sen,~ me right, our shilling has from 1989 to 1992 lallen down to the dollar by about 274%. For t:1is reason, and under the circumstances of this case, I a,-rard to i?.i. 1 30% of the said devaluation and inflation rate annually on tl1e :purchase price or principal swn of :Shs. _4_,.2_8_3_,_4_2_0_{=. from 15.8.89·till full satisfaction.·; It is 2.~ainst that ·:)acl.;:ground that this appeal has been preferred. 9 Before us the appellant was represented by Mr. R, C. Kesaria and Mr. J.C. D1 3ouza while the respondent was represented by iVir .. 't. :.·!iaira and ;:ir. ',J .A .L. i!iira;nbo. Counsel for the appellant filed a to·ca·:_ of 26 grounds of appeal and at the hearing we also r~rai1ted t:·1em leave to argue another four additional grounds. Essentially the issue raised in these grounds is that the a:,:ipellant duly delivered the farm implements to P.W.1, or to the Jailways (the carrier) at Dar es :Salaam for transmission to P. •.J .1, ·in accordance with the ter,ns of the contract, and that once that was done then property in the goods passed so that the appellant was no longer responsible for the damage caused to the goods while in transit to Arusha. Counsel for the appellant took the view tha-t; this was a contract for the sale of unascertained goods which was governed by the provisions of fl.ule V of section 20 o.f the 5ale of Goods Ordinance (Cap. 214). He therefore -cri t-icised t~1e ·crial judge for failing to hold that "where t:1ere is a contract for the sale of unascertained goods by description and goods of that description, a~d in a deliverable state are unconditionally appropriated to the contract (as was the case here) the property in the goods thereupon passes to the buyer O :: We agree with learned counsel that this was a contract for the sale of unascertained or largely unascertained goods by description. This was so because the tractor which formed part of the goods was ascertained only by its chasis and engine nwnbers. That was not sufficient to ascertain it because it was not 1~nmvn what the body looked like or what colour it was. What is even ~ore is that the other two •..• /10 10 implements, namely, the harrow anci. the chisel were completely unascertained. We also a,~;r2e that the goods were appropriated. to the contract when they were pointed out to P. \:f .1 in the appellant's workshop at Pugu !'~oad in Dar es Salaam or at the time of loading them on the wagon at the railway station Dar es Salaam for transmission to Arusha. However, we do not agree that the appropriation was unconditional. Our view is that the appellant had reserved the right of disposal of the goods, and this made the appropriation conditional thereby preventing the propertx__ in the goods from passin~ to P.W.1. Section 21(1) of the Sale of Goods Ordinance provides that: ,;Where there is a contract for the sale of specifi·c· )?;oods, or wl1ere goods are subsequently appropriated to the contract, the seller may, by the terms of the contract or appropriation, reserve the rL;ht of disposal of the goods until certain conditions are fulfilled. In such case notwith~ ~ standing the delivery of the goods to a buyer; or to a carrier or other bailee or custodier for the purpose l"lf.transmission to the buyer, the property in the goods does not pass to the buyer until the conditions imposed by the seller are fulfilled.;; It is clear from the evidence that when P.W.1 arrived in Dar es Salaam the goods were not ready for collection because there was yet pre-delivery service to be done on them and a customs clearance certificate to be obtained .... I 11 I I ·r t . 11 . in respect of them. D.W.2 clearly stated that it was the duty· of the appellant to obtain the certificate and D.W.1 demonstrated to P.W.1 the futility of collecting the goods without such certificate. This is what he said: "I replied him ( P. rl. 1 ) that so long as the customs docuinents were not ready then it was not possible for him to collect and register the tractor. P. W.1 knew this very \vell. ;, Consistent with that stand, the appellant must have decided that in order to avoid further inconvenience of keeping P. W; 1 longer in Dar es Sa],.aam and in order to avert the._. threat by Fw, i to rescind the contract, he ( P. ,-J. 1) could return to Arusha and take delivery of the implements there after the appellant had done the needful. In other words the appell9nt, appr~ciating its obligation to carry out pre-delivery service to the ~~plements and; in particular, to obtain a customs clearance certificate without which it was useless for P.W.1 to take delivery of the implements, appropriated the goods to the contract but reserved its right of disposal thereof pending the doing of the two things. It was necessary to reserve the right of disposal thus in order to enable the appellant to take delivery of the goods at its Arusha branch for the purpose of doing those two things, The trial judge rightly rejected the appellant's claim that P.W.1 insisted on, and eventually succeeded in, taking delivery of the implements at Dar es Salaam. F_or that would be a useless exercise, and according to D.w.1· he (PW.1) knew . • • • • /12 .A m=.,m,_ ,===-_ .=m, A.!1:111::::m.J. A = r:irz:-a ---= ----··· , ---- '+--•, .. . ' I l,f" • '· . it. Theri why should P.W.1 engage in such a useless exercise? Again if he had taken delivery of the implements at Dar es Salaam, what was the point of consigning the,n to the appellant at Arusha instead of to himself? It is true that P.W.1 did a number of things·in connection with the dispatch of the goods to. Arusha. For instance, he initially looked fer a railway wagon on which to load the implements. He paid the transport charges including paying for the escort; he signed the consignment n.ote ~ His explanation was that he did these things, upon being asked by the appellant, in order to facilitate the whole exercise because he was interested to see that the implements reach Arusha as soon as possible •. We can find no ground for saying that the trial judge should have reject~d that explanqtion. Counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that there was unconditional appropriation of the goods to the ~:ontra:·ct when the appellant handed over the implements to the railway authorities for transmission to Arusha. Learned counsel further conten-jed that following such unconditional appropriation, the property in the goods passed to P.W.1 so that even if it is held that the appellant continued to be in possession of the goods, it did so as a mere bailee. No doubt, this view is based on the provisions of Rule V (2) of section 20 of the Sal~ of Goods Ordinance which says that: 11 (2) Where in pursuance of the contract the seller delivers the goods to the buyer or to a carrier or other bailee .... /13 _l!il'a!II em , J-=m. 13 er custodier (whether named by the buyer or not) for the purpose of transmission to the buyer, and does not reserve the right of disposal, he is deemed to have unconditionally appropriated the goods to the contract. ;r But as already demonstrated, this was a case of conditional appr6priation of goods to the contract by reason of the appellarit reserving the right of dil3posal~ This view is reaffirmed by the provisions of section 21 (2) of the Sale of Goods Ordinance which provides that': 11 (2) Where goods are shipped, and by the bill of lading the goods are deliverable to the order of the seller"·or his agent, the seller is prima facie deemed to reserve . the right of disposal • 11 Since the appellant consigned the goods from its Dar es Salaam office to its Arusha office, it is prima facie deemed to have reserved the right of disposal. The appellant gave no explanation to rebut that presumption, and on the evidence we could find none. On the other hand the presumption is confirmed by the appellant's intention to take delivery of and.reposs~ss the implements at Arusha in order to do pre- delivery service and obtain the requisite customs clearance certificate in respect of them. Because of such reservation of the right of disposal, therefore, the property in the goods did not pass, and the appellant remained the owner after appropriating the goods to the contract. • ••• / 14 .II. ,· 14 Indeed the conduct of the appellant after appropriating the goods to the contract was consistent with its ownership of those goods. The evidence shows that P.W.1 took the consignment note in·respect of the implements in question to the appellant's representative at its Dar es S_alaam office, whereupon the said representative in turn instructed him to take it to the appellant's representative at its Arusha office for action and he did so, The trial 'judge accepted that evidence and we could not fault him. The consignment note shows the consignor of the goods to be the appellant's office at Arusha. Neither the appellant's representative at Dar es ,Salaam off ice nor at Arusha expressed surprise that the goods were consigned by its office in Dar es Salaam to its office at Arusha. Quite clearly such conduct is consisten·t with the view that although -~he appellant ha~.duly appropriated the goods to the contract, it'was still the owner of those goods. In fact upon the goods arriving at Arusha the railway authorities there completely refused to recognize anyone else but the appellant as the owner of the goods. The acts of the appellant's representative rushL~g to the scene of the accident at Hedaru which i3 so far away without informing P.W.1 about the accident, the appellant's taking delivery of the goods at Arusha and paying demurrage charges in respect thereof are consistent with the appellant's ownership of the goods. If the appellant was not the owner of the goods why should it take delivery of the goods and pay demurrage charges in the sum of Shs. 376,000/=? And why has it (the appellant) not lodged a claim against P.W.1 for a refund of this sum?· .. = ==-=-- .!! ■ - -=-=ma. -==- - 15 There is yet another matter to be alluded to in this respect. The trial judge rightly accepted the evidence that there was no arrangement between P.W.1 and Mr. Mario Gikas to transport the latter's trailer from Dar es Salaam to Arusha. That goes to confirm that the whole consignment comprising P.W.1 1 s implements and Mr. Gikas's trailer had been sent by the appe_llant. That is to say the appellant was the owner of the whole consignment, and that is why it· ·(the appellant) accepted the responsibility of repairing at cost Mr. Gikas' s trailer whi_ch· was damaged in the accident • . Now, if the appellant was the owner in·- respect of the trailer how come that it was not the owner in r~spect of the-. irnplemen comprised in the very sarne consignment? The evidence on record,-therefore, amply justifies the finding - that upon·":.:·.appropriating ..... . the goods to the contract, the. appellant reserved,· the right of disposal. That rendered the appropriation only conditional and thereby prevented the property in the goods from passing. The appellant remained the owner of the goods to-date. We heard lengthy arguments on whether or not there was any binding variatio~ of the written contract to change the place of delivery from Dar es Salaam to Arusha, and whether or not the goods were in a deliverable state. We _were also referred to numerous authorities in that regard. However; those questions are of little or no reievance now once it is held that there has been no transfer of owner.sl:l..ip from the appellant, because the claim is that the appellant has failed to deliver the goods, whatever state they be in and whether at Dar es Salaam or at Arusha. • •• 0 / 16 . ---- ,,- -- . --...;.t~ . •, I .. ,, ~f' . . '\ 16 • It was also submitted that after the accident which caused damage to the tractor, P.W.1 wrongly refused to take delivery of the tractor at Arusha when the damage caused to it was only slight, the evidence being that P.W.1 was asked to bear the cost of buying the necessary spares amounting to Shs. 300,000/= while the appellant was to bear the labour charges. P.W.1 denied any such offer having been made to him.- But even if t!'.).e appellant's version is accepted that P. W. 1 refused the offer and ·insisted on replacement of the tractor, such refusal in our view cannot be said to be unreasonable. For, there is no legal basis for maki~~ P.W.1 responsible for damage caused to the tractor at a time when that trac~or was owned by, and in the possessio~ and care of, someone else. --Thus on the evidence we are satisfied that the appellant failed to deliver the farm implements to P.W.1 in accordance with the terms of the contract and therefore the learned trial judg~ was justified to find that the appellant.was in breach of the contract. As regards the award, counsel f0r the appellant criticised the trial judge for giving the respondent an option to purchase a new tractor of similar type on an open ended price scale and to charge the price difference to the appellant. The learned judge was also criticised for allowing the respondent to recover the difference between the pre-paid purchase price and the market price obtaining on the day of the accident when there was no evidence of any such difference. We think that there is merit in the .... /17 complaint. Accordingly that part cf the award is varied as follows:- The appellant is to refund to the first respondent (P.W.1) Shillings 4,483,h20/= being the pre-paid purchase price with interest at bank rate from the date of payment of the purchase price till final payment. Counsel criticised the award. of special damages for loss of use at the rate of between Shs. 20,000/= and Shs. 10,000/= per day without proof thereof. In support of his claim for special dataages P.W.1 said:- "To-date I have not been supplied . with the tractor, harrow and chisel plougho I have sufferred great loss thereby. I used to realize 20,000/= per day from ploughing 20 acres per day at 1,000/= p~r acre at the material time. I used to transport sand, stones, sugar cane. This i's·· ·on hire basis. Each trip cost 7,000/=. At the material time I had contracted to plough 200 acres of Mr. Patel who had paid me Shs. 400,000/= in advance~ Due to lack of tractor I could not plough those acres". That evidence was not controverted and therefore the learned. trial judge rightly took it into account when assessing the award. However, we could find no evidence to support his using different rates per day in computing the drunages payable for loss of use depending on the different seasons of the year-. With that in mind, we think that a uniform rate of reckening the damages would be appropriate • • . . •/18 • 18 Accordingly we v~ry this part of the award to the extent of allowing the respondent (P.W.1) to recover damages for loss of the use at the rate of Shs. 10,000/= per day plus interest at court rate from the day of non-delivery i.e. October, 1989 till the date of judgement. Counsel objected to the award of Shs •· 400, 000/ = on the grounds that P.W.1 had entered into the ploughing ,. contract prematurely, that he nad other tractors and ploughs and 't'f:1at in a.ny event the award was a duplication in the ligh_t · of the award for loss of use already given • . .=-i ~· We find merit'in the" objection on this ·head especfally ~ on the ground that this was a duplication.- · For, the award . ... of Shs. 400,000/=·"damages was in respect of loss sustained - i- for.the period during which P.W.1 : . wou'l;;_d 'h~ve· ·executed .the . pleughing contract. That period is not J3.scertainable; it ; . - ' might have been ten or fifteen days., for i,nstance. But such period is included in the award already ~ade £or loss of use and calculated at Shs. 10, 0_00/ = per day from· the· day· of non-delivery to the day of judgement. Such award is clearly a duplication which ought not to'be allowedo We· would accordingly set aside the award of Shs. 400,000/= • ... .. ,, Once the awards which we have upheld were made, we think that the award for general damages, t~king into accoun- devaluation and inflation was no longer justified. The awart under that head is accordingly set aside. . ... /19 We no~ com~ to the question of costs. As stated earlier on in this judgement, both sides were ~epresented by two advocates. At the conclusion of the hearing of the I: appeal each side ·asked for a certificate of costs for two counsel. Tlle applicat_ion has m:ri t. The case was long and obviously complicated. It required a great deal of ? effort and patienc~ ~o an~lyse the issues involved and to~ look up the. relevant prov_istons of the law. Accordingly, ·.?t'';'.. .,. . . ~' 3¢. •' c' J .LI · day of J _J/ 1994, -~ *•. :,,._. . -----~ iI ' i. ' I .. ...-· .-~.,,,,.,· . ... ~ (B. M. LUAND,t)-_.,. .•· SENIOR DEPUTY.REGISTRAR