20150618 TZHC Dar es Salaam

r ,.-; . ··r' P_age 1 of 21 / IN THE·HIGHCOURT OF TANZANIA,, · .. 'ccoMM.ERcIAL 01vrs10NY · · AT DAR ES SALAAM . ' ,_, t • ·., f •. COMMERCIAL CASE NO. 162 OF 2013 BETWEEN ·INSPECTORATE TESTING SERVICES 1 LIMITED (ITS) ---------------------------------+--------~----------------PLAINTIFF VERSU$ LAKE OIL TANZANIA LIMITED----------------L----------------------DEFENDANT ' ' JUDGM6NT . Date of the Last Order: 17/4/2015 Date of the Judgment: 18/6/2015 SONGORO, J i M/s Inspectorate Testing Services Limited (ITS), the Plaintiff filed a Plaint suing Lake Oil Tanzania Limite~, the Defendant, claiming that in June, 2010, his company was contracted by the Defendant to render inspectorate services on the befendant's trucks. The services included sealing of trucks , product analysis, and escorting of ' trucks and they discharge their work as per agreement. Plaintiff claims that, the Defendant has breached the contract, by refusing to pay the contractual agreed sum, despite several demands. ' Page 2 of 21. ... ' ' ·· The Plaintiff therefore is seeking a Court order for payment of USD , 37,053 as an outstanding claim, . ori the oral contract, and other . .; ·reliefs In the Plaint, Plaintiff therefore claim following orders, and reliefs as follows; a. The court be pleased to declare that, the Defendant has breached the · agreement·and the Defendant pay the Plaintiff the outstanding balance of United States Dollars Thirty Seven TIJousanf:1✓ and Fifty Three (USD 37,053.00). b. That, the Defendant pay the Plaintiff Commercial interest at 3% per month from i5t June 2011 to the filing date of this suit c. That, the Defendant pay the Plaintiff interest on default amount at the court's ra'f:e from the date of Judgment, until the decree is satisfied in full. d. That, the Defe'!dant pay the Plaintiff United States Dollars Twenty Thousand (USD 20,000.00) as general damages. e. The Defendant pay the costs, and incidentals to this suit. f. Any other relief(s) Honorable Court may deem fit andJust to grant. In response, to the Plaint, and Plaintiff claims, Defendant filed a Written Statement of Defence, and opposed all clattns. In addition, the Defendant stated that, they just entered into a pre- contractual arrangement with the Defend.ant to render the said services, on trial basis for the Defendant's twenty (20) trucks only in · order to test and ascertain the quality, and standards of such services. Defendant also said the Plaintiff was paid USD 20,000 for the services which he rendered on trial basis. He then stated that, . '"" ' Page 3 of21 ii ' ..., '' . .:i~i:·· •;_:·: '. '· '' . (_. ' ' ' '.' ' ' •'· ' "' ..... . . ,; .,: .. ·, ,' .• ' ,. " ' ' ' ,. '.< ,! . since there was nO contract which exiSted between the tw6 ,the:·,· · Defendant pray for di~miSsal Of th~ Plaintiff's suit with costs ih his favour. , · At the hearing of the suit, the court in consultation with the parties framed, the following three issues for petermination, being;- J. Whether the agreement to p,vvide .services on trial basis had an expiry period. · 2. whether the amount of USD 20,000, Paid by the Defendant was full and final .payment. 3. What are reliefs are parties entitled _too. . - In the light of the above mentioned, agreed issues, the hearing of the suit commenced. During the hearing, Capt Bendera Learned Advocate represented the Plaintiff; while the Defendant was represented by Mr. Mark, Learned Advocate. To start with the Plaintiff with <lssistance of his Couns.el Capt Bendera, called Francis Julius Ntapala who testified as PWl. Then relying on paragraph 5 Of Witness statement, PWl said his company deals with supervision of Ships, and: Cargo. Then relying on Paragraphs 5 and 6 of his statement the witness briefed the court that on the contract which was concluded, he first • I Page 4 of ~1 · ~t,ad telephone cGnversatiori with Ally Awadhi, the Managing Directo,r · '., .·. ' ' ' of Lake Oil Ltd and they agreed that,·· his company renders several services to the DE:ferldant company,- including road tracki~g, sealing of trucks, product analysis,:· and escorting of defendant's trucks from Dar es Salaam to the boarders of Tanzania. PW1, then stated in his Witness Sta~ement that, after they have agreed, he issued a Price· List of each service, and · on the 18/6/2010," they started their services. th It was part of his evidence that, by 30 June, 2011 they offered.9 ~ services, and in each service they rendered, Defendant was furnished with various reports, such as a survey reports, inspection report, ·certificates of quality, and invoices. PW1, then said in Paragraphs 10 and 11 of his Statement that, the total costs of their services which was rendered to the Defendant was ." USD 57,053 as seen in the invoices. But Defendant had paid only USD 20,000 by two Banker's Cheques . The unpaid, and remaining balance which Defendant has refused, and neglected to pay is USD 37,053. To support his claim, PW1 tendered the following exhibits, invoice rate was admitted as Exhibit Pl, Inspection Report of Gas oil and Mogas, Ref Report No 403/Insp/Jul/11-LOL dated ) st -30 th June, •: page 5 of 21 ., ...... ·: . r~~:t~'. :.• ' ~ . . · •.:: ,· .· , ".2Hl:1'F was, admltted as ExhJ0it' ::~p~, .:<;:ertffiCt!te of Arlci:lys.is. ::--~;,WP§, .. :i,>i-,,1,., ·.,. ·...:; 1 . .· .,· . , ··. ; ··/.:-· ··r~•·:,~~-~;:.,.,·.'··.~:···~\;(.'.··.; ·! . admitted as Exhibit P3~ · n,voice was a_dmitted as Ex.hibit P4, Severa.t . Truck Inspe.ction~. Reports at· Loading.; YJere coll~ctively · admitt~d as ~ Exhibit PS, A Photocopy of CRDB Bank,Pay slip-of 10/11/2010 of USD . . 10,000 paid to the Plaintiff by the Defendant was admitted as Exhipit P6, and a Demand Letter for Payment of USD 37,053 was admitted as Exhibit P7. . Upon tendering the said exhibits PWl cross examined by Defendant's Counsel, and he explained to th_e court that, is a marine surveyor by profession, and one of the Directors of the Plaintiff Company. ~,I;.". He further explained that the Second Director is one Mr.· Kyalo Simaugi IIunga who is a Kenyan. bn their assignments with the Defendant company, he .explained i that, they were supposed to inspect Plaintiff' .. Oil tankers before ,loading of petroleum products, taking samples petroleum products' and submitting them to their office in Mombasa ·for testing inspection, and certification. PWl said i a.II .-the· abov:e-mentioned tasks wer~ performed at the Defendant's . depotat Kigamboni area. Another task which were assig_ned, was to escort trucks to boarders. · On the agreed services, PW1 elabGrated that, they were paid for . their services. On the scope of agreed work, PWl while being. cross i examined at page 19 of the recorded statement said their · I I Page 6 of 21 .... ·. they provides the services. Finally, PW1 prayed to the C(?urt to order the Defendant to pay the remaining balance and reliefs claimed in the plaint and he closed his testimony, and it was the end of the plaintiff case. After the Plaintiff closed his case, Defendant also presented his defence, and called two witnesses who testified in his favour. To start with the Defendant calied Raphael Smaug IIunga Kyalo who testified as DW1. . _Relying o~ his witness statement DW1 told the court that, he is a _Director of Inspectorate Testing Services, of the Plaintiff's Company and is based at Mombasa. He also said in his statement that, is the Technical Director of the Plaintiff Company. Further, DWl said in Paragraphs 4 and 5 of his statement that, he knew personally Ally Edha Awadhi of Lake. Oil Tanzania Limited who is the Managing Director of the Defendant's company. Then DW1 said Ally Awadhi offered them an assignments of conducting inspection of 20 trucks on trial basis arrangement which they did. He then added in Paragraph 5 of his statement that, before they negotiated of another arrangement their company proceeded with P.age 7 of21 ., .-,. ._, the· inspecfion work .bey:Ond .~ha.tt~;~as agreed 9pqn., DW ~ ;:then .. -~ said in paragraph 6.0 :of his- statement, that/; th~i~ effort.to _deriia~tl < : - for payment of WSD 37,0~3 for work Which they pe~formed did; not '. " materialize for reasons that, the yvork . was, done without the knowledge, and approval of the Managing Director of the Defendant .. I - . Company. •·- Regarding an outstanding claim of usD 37,053 which the Plaintiff· 1 company was demanding, DW1 who .is the director of the Plaintiff's I company, told the court that, he on behalf of the Pla!ntiff company i negotiated with Ally Edha Awadhi, :and they unanimously agreed that, the payment· of USO 20,000 already paid to the Plaintiff i company was full, and final settlement in respect of all services I rendered by the Plaintiffs company. 1 I Finally, DW1 in his statement briefed the court that, his company claims in court are misconceived because i . the amount of USD 20,000 paid by the defendant's company and accepted by the Plaintiff was ' final and full settlement on all services which was rendered. He als; added that, as a Board MembJr of the Plaintiff Company they did not make any resolution of filing _this suit in the court. I To support his assertion that, is a director of the Plaintiffs Company he tendered a copy of Memorandum and Articles of Associations of M/s Inspectorate Testing Service~ Limited dated 11 th September, 2008 which was admitted as Exhjbit D1. The Exhibit shows that, Page 8 of 21 Franeis ·Juliu,~: Ntapala ·a.Qd -R~phaet ..Srn9µg. IIu~ga ·Kyalo :are,·· both directors of the Plaintiff Company. After DWl testified another witness Ally~ Edha Awadl)i also testified as DW2. In his testimony DW2 relying on his witness statement told the court that, he is the Managing Director of the Defendant's Company. ( Further, DW2 briefed the court that, he entered into pre-contractual agreement with the Plaintiff's company to render inspectorate services to his 20 trucks . on trial basis, at least to ascertain the quality, and standard of inspection services. The witness said t~e inspec~ion services were rendered and discontinuec:I, and the information was communicated to DWl who is the Director of the Plaintiff's Company. On whom he talked about on pre-contractual arrangement, DW2 while being cross examined by Capt Bendera, said, he talked with two officials of the Plaintiff's Company about the services to be rendered. Also, he· added that, Francis Julius Ntapala -PWl was known to him, as a representative of the Plaintiff's Company; in ·· Tanzania. ')age, g·of 21 . .. .· . '.;· .' ·or{th'e PJairitiff fclaitn ~ofUSD'i'37;05~, :DW2. maintc1ine,d.-fril. Paragraph . . ·, .. · . · : ,. ' ~ -•~,-. ,. -, , , ·~ ' · . . . <··.;,_·:·:•:·,_:,. ·r· .. _. ·~~ , .. ~-~-;-~-~ ,: Q~:. - r_~:- ' 6;0 of his statement, that, it was tn. relation to: inspection. -services , _ ;- · , which were conducted, after they terminate~ their. pre-contractual arraf1gement with the Plaintiff, without their ·knowledge, and approval. . . Then DW2 said in Paragraphs 6 , and 7 of his statement narrated to that, all plaintiffs claims were amicably settled with DW1 who is the Director of the Plaintiff company, and USO 20,000 was full, and• final payment for all plaintiff's claims. To support his assertion, DW2 tendered a Letter from Inspectorate Testing Services signed by Raphael Smaug IIunga Kyalo dated 25 th May, 2014: The letter confirmed that, the Plai,:1tiff's claims before .· the court is misconceived because it was already unanimously agreed . that, the amount of USD 20,000 paid to the Plaintiff Company was final, and full payment of services rendered . The Plaintiff letter was admitted as E~hibit02. Finally, DW2. prayed for the dismissal of the suit and closed his testimony and that was the enc;! of the Defendant case, and Mr. Mark closed his case. After the closure of the Plaintiff, and Defendants cases, Capt Bendera, Learned Advocate for the Plaintiff, and Mr. Mark Counsel for :f'age 10 of 21 . . 3 -' ·' Def~ndant,. •· made : their- ,-subm.issions. In. their submission they,,.·_.:· consistently supported the position stated by their parties. On the part of Capt Bendera, he strongly submitted that, from the presented evidence, it well established that, there was an agreement to render inspectorate services to the Defendant's company, and there was no expiry period which was agreed upon. He then insisted that is the reasons the lnspectorate services were rendered from 9th October, 2010, until 10th June 2011. The Learned Advocate then maintained that, from Exhibit P2 - a survey report, Certificate of Analysis -Exhibit P3, Inspection Reports from the Defendant Depot Exhibit, PS and invoices Exhibit P4 the Plaintiff has fully established that the services were rendered as per the Agreement and the claim of .. USD 37,053 was based on the rate stipulated in the invoice and were due and payable. Relying on Exhibit PS which was also signed by the Defendant's officials at Depot, Capt Bendera · submitted that, the explanation off~red by the Defendant that, the agreement was just for trial basis is not true. The truth of the matter is· that; the Defendant authorized the Plaintiff, and his officials to conduct inspection. services. ' Page 11 of 21 Respondirf~H to :ihe '1testim0ny 'df.: ,D)!\'J~ -\; yvho_.i~S•·:,t,~~:, ~ir~~tot;,-?nd . • 1 '. , ' . . . ' . .. . . . ~ ' ,' ~ ~ ' '_: •: · shareholder of the Plajntiff·company, . Capt Bendera .,., submitted . . that. h~ .· ; ·, ;• " I ,, • L •< '. I admitted that the services- which was rendered exceeded 20 trucks. t On· the ~tatement that inspectorate I services proceeded without 9 . ' knowledge, ·and information of the Defendant 's Managing Director, • , •• I • he submitted that, is not true . . Responding to the testimonies of DW1 and DW2 that, USD 20,000 , ! was paid as full and final settlement the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted since there is no agreement which confirms that, then their testimonies on the point of I "amicable settlement" of the claim is not convincing at all. It was. the views of the Plaintiffs • Counsel that, the presented I evidence proved the claim and Plainfiff is entitled to relief claimed in the Plaint. On his part Mr. Mark for the Defendant . . . r ..· relying on the testimonies of DW1 and DW2 submitted that, their testimonies established that, the inspectorate services were to be rendered on 'trial basis for 20 , trucks and from 18/6/2010 to 30/6/2010,1 but the Plaintiff proceeded to provide services beyond 20 trucks. While on this point, the ·Learned Advocate for the Defendant drew I the attention of the Court to the te$timony of DWl, the Director of · · Page 12 of 21- .... . ,:·. -'the Pfaihtiff ½bnipariy,.- who 'confirmed that the ,agreed ,inspectorat(e ::: : '.; . ~-. ': . ' · :services, · to Be 'rendered was on trial basis, --fa~· 20 trucks -only._ H~- t_hen insisted that, it is obvious going by, the· testimony of DWl who . . is_ the Plaintiff Director, · the agreement for inspectorate services expired after 20 trucks were inspected. Thus on the first legal issue of whether the agreement to provide ' services to the Defendant had expiry period, the Counsel submitted that DWl has proved that it had agreed expiry period, of 20 trucks, That means after inspection of 20 trucks, that was the end of the agreement. " Turning on the second issue of whether the amount of USD 20,000 paid to the Defendant was final, and _full payment, Counsel submitted that, the testimony of DWl established that, the Plaintiff. claims nothing. Moving to the third point of what reliefs are parties entitled too, Defendant counsel ~submitted that, the suit has no basis because DWl said the suit was filed even without the authority of Board as required by Article 43 of Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Plaintiff Company- Exhibit Dl. Next, the Defendant's Counsel submitted that, sincethe Plaintiff has failed to prove his. claim in the Plaint, he· prayed that the suit be dismissed with costs in favour of the Defendant. '\. ' . - ., Page 13 of 21 I I . Defence, ,•· ' testimonies of ·. witnesses from both sides and submi$sion ' -. . a11d. find the central . issues .in the Plaintiff suit is what was agreed upon between. the Plaintiff, and Defendant on whether the agreement to provide inspectorate services to the Defendant had an expiry time, and whether the amount of USD 20,000 paid to the Plaintiff was final and full payment on services rendered. Last issue is what reliefs are parties entitled toG. Turning to the . first issue whether the agreement. to. provide i-~s-~~ctio~:·se~ice to the Defendant 1had an expiry time, I find from· the presented evidence there are two lines of arguments. I The first line of argument is presented by the Plaintiff and is. supported by PWl, which insist that, there was no expiry time of the agreement which was agreed up,on. The second line of argument is tlie one presented by the I Defendant's Company and testimonies of DWl and DW2 that, there was pre-contractual arrangement to inspect 20 oil tankers, not more 1 than that. The Court carefully followed the testimony of PWl, that there was . I- no agreed time . for :inspection - services, . and find his evidence was based on telephone conservations, which PWl claims he made to Page 14 of 21 DW2'. But/1'·Defendarir company·'denied and ·put-that . .Plaintiff into ,, . strict· pfoof, to prove all ' his. allegations including telepho~es: conversation and what Was orally agreed. Thus when the court revisited the testimony of PW1 on the so called telephone conversation between PW1 and DW1, it noted that the Plaintiff did not furnish to the court, evidential details which would assist the court to weigh and assess his evidence, of whether there was a telephone conversation between PW1 and DW2, . . and . whether they agreed that, their was no time frame of their oral contract or it was ·agreed that the inspection services was on trial basis and limited for 20 trucks only. While assessing the PW1' s testimony_ on alleged oral con.tract, the . court found that, it is a fact that, currently_ there are several contracts which are negotiated, and concluded via telephone conversations, around the world. Also, the court found as a- matter of fact, a party like the Plaintiff who relies on telephone conversations as a ·basis of his contract, and payments due .has a burden furnishing the court with credible, and convincing evidence on what was agreed was upon on· their telephone conversation. ,Page 15 of 2i · ,., '. . ~- ,: ., . . . ... . . ·.. · -: Ir\· view of-the: above, if seems· ·tp))me . - . that, ,,,tthe Plainti.ff'·was; under .. ,,:.., >--. ,::,,:- ' . . ~- ~- :'t ' . ,: ~-. ' : -· obligation, to • lead. evidence which,. established, he ·made telephon~ ·. · conservation to DW2 by /disclosing in his testimony before the _court,, ·a telephone number whi~h he used to communicate with the DW2'. Secondly, to disclose in his evider:ice before the court, the telephone numbe·r of the DW2 which he· was communicating with Thirdly informing the court in his evidence the actual date, and time which he communicated with DW2, and fourthly to disclose to the court I the actual words used or made by D\{1/2 while accepting the services I and the duration of the contract. The court perused the testimony of PWl, and his Witness Statement filed in Court on the 28/4/2014, plus documentary exhibits which he tendered, and find PWl and the Plaintiffs Company did not furnish the above-mentioned details in order for the Court to make an assessment, if the telephone communication on oral contract, was made by PWl as he alleges, and if the duration of contract was agreed upon between PWl, and DW2 ., as alleged. Honestly, I find a mere allegations by the Plaintiff and PW! in the dock not substantiated with credible and convincing evidence that there was a telephone conversation on the contract and duration of the contract was not agreed upon, such allegations are not sufficient enough to convince and prove to -the court· on what was , Page 16 of 21 agreed uponj- -·and if the duration ~of the . :contract was agreed upqi, ,or not. ·. It seems to me, since the Plaintiff was put to strict proof, am:I had a · burden of proof there was a need for PWl to disclose their telephone details, with DW2 as he alleged in the Plaint. In the absence of "such crucial details of telephone conversation" then _the credibility and reliability of PW1 testimony that he had telephone conservations with DW 2, and DW2 did not admit, it, .remains to be unsubstantiated. It is trite law ur,der Section 110(1) and (2) that of the Evidence Act, ' Cap. 6 (R.E. 2002) who wants the court to give judgme~t in his favour on existence of any fact must prove it. Indeed Section 110 (1) of the Evidence Act, 1967, Cap 6 [R.E. 2002] provides that; whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependant on the existence of fads which he asserts must prove that those fads eXJ,"st; And Subsection (2) of Section 110 of Cap 6 states that; When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. , .. .' . ''.;--r,',;• I> • Page 17 of 21 ' ••.~- .~ 1\_;' · • Tire! same •legal po?itiQrf''dMhe ' "'las' '~rrt~~?sized :~Ye thf! ,cou~- Of~- . . Appeal in the. case of WOifing Dourado V. Tito •Da ' I • • • Costa,ZNZ ·Civil··.·. • • Appeal N'o. ~02 (CA} (unreport~dJthat: i ~-. •" ,:. ' - i . ·' whoever alleges a fact, unless it is unequivocally admitted by the adversary h~s to prove it, albeit on the balance of probability" i I And on the meaning of "proof on th~ balance of probability" Lord Denning(MR) in Miller versus Minister of Pension (1937) 2 ALL ER 372 at Page 374 said its a' proof which; • ! I it must carry a reasonable degree of probability but not so high as required in Criminal Case. I Jf the evidence • • is such that the Tribunal can say he think i~ is more probably than not the burden of proof has been discharg~d, but if the probabilities are equal it is not" I I I ' I Again in the case of Re-Minor (1966) AC 536 AT 586, the court clarified on proof of the· "balance of probability" by stating that ; I I The balance of p~obability . means, a court is satisfied an event occurred. if the court consider - I the evidence the occurrence of the event was more likely than, not. !It means the balance was not 1 discharged i ' Thus guided by Section 110(1) and (2) of the Evidence Act, Cap 6 ' £R.E.2002} and decisions in the cases of Miller versus Minister .: of .. . Pension and Re-Minor (1966) AC 536, the court find in the absence ! . of telephone numbers, which· were used in conversation between I 1· ' ' I . . ·Page 18 of 21 - ' s.> <~··: - PWl and,-,DW?, _,. an~ -aqs~r.1ce _of. qat~ a_nd time ,-when the all~ged. _ • • . I\,•• l , conversations on oral contract. was made, it follows therefore .. that, there~is ... a . probability that DW2 talked with DWl who is ,/the Director . . . of the Plaintiff- company and not PWl as plaintiff claims, and agreed on inspection of 20 trucks, as claimed by the Defendant. More on the duration of the contract, the court find there •is a testimony bf Raphael Smaug IIunga Kyalo DWl, the Director of the ' Plaintiff Company, who in his testimony, and · paragraph 5 of his statement supported the testimony of DW2 by saying that their inspection assignment . ,. on defendant trucks was a pre-contr.actual assignment involving 20 trucks only. But before negotiation of the Agreement was concluded, the Plaintiff company continued to render the services in total disregard of what was previously agreed. DWl who is a Director of the Plaintiff's company, like PWl, his evidence on the Plaintiff's company which supported DW2 testimony, carries weight. For reasons, explained above, I find that, PWl 's assertion that, the agreed agreement of rendering inspection service did not have time frame was not substantiated, and proved by the Plaintiff. Regarding PWl assertion that in June 2010, had a Meeting with DW2 and it was agreed to render inspectiqn services to the Defendant's Corffpahy . . ·. and. . •n<:t·titoe ·. '. ftamefVva's· agreed:upon;;,_.again., ', ',. . . . . : .. ~ L'fifld _this . ·, . . . , . .,. . . . . . , .,_ .. 't _:; ~ point was.just stated in Paragrapr ·q\uf PW1 ~ s statement. But PW1 did not explain Jn his statement,and. .testirnony in court on . a date, ~ ~ time and place where he met and discussed, with ·DW2~ ab'out the f ' Agreement and its duration. I therefore find his assertion that he met with DW1 was not substantially proved. So, in nutshell taking into account the testimonies of DW1 who is the Director of th~ Plaintiffs company, I find there is no proof if the Agreement was intended to last forever. Turning on second issue if the amount of USO 20,000 paid to the Defendant was final and full payment, honestly, I find that is what I exactly was said by DW1 and DW2 iri their witnesses statement and even in their testimonies. DW1 is a Director of Plaintiff Inspectorate Company, and his name appears at Page 24 of Exhibit D2 a Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Plaintiff Company . Currently the court has no good and weighty reasons to doubt what was said by DW1 who is the director of the Plaintiffs Company, that is the one who negotiated on behalf of the Plaintiff's Company a settlement which lead to a payment of USO 20,000 as final and full payment. Page 20 of 21 . Also, the court has n6 reasons, to doubt DWl' s evidence that the Plaintiff company continued with inspectorate- work without the approval of DWl. jt is in this respect I find that, there was an agreement between the Plaintiff Company represented by DWl and Defendant company that the amount of USD 20,000 was paid as final and full s,ettlement of· Inspectorate seryices which were rendered. That is all the court may say in respect of issue No 2. Turning to the third agreed issue of what reliefs are parties entitled too, the court find reliefs claimed in paragraph 11 (a)(b)(c) (e) (d) and (f) of the Plaint were not proved on the balance of probability. Consequently, r hereby dismiss the Plaintiff suit with costs in favour of the Defendant. The Right of Appeal is fully explained to the parties. Dated at Dar es Salaam on this 18th day of June, 2015 H.T. SONGORO (JUDGE) Delivered at Dar es Salaam on this 18th day of June, 2015 '.- . :-; Page21of21 ~ • I o f-..: •.' . ·t ~ r, ' .t , l I I C H.T. SONGORO .. , I, • (JUDGE}" ,. .. i .I ; i The Judgment was. delivered in t?e presence of Capt Bendera, Learned Advocate for Plaintiff and Plaintiff himself and absence of the I . Defendant and his Counsel.