19980817 TZCA Arusha

AT ARUSHA .. " AR-CIVIL APPLICATION NO'.: 25· OF 1997 BETWEEN · INTEnNATIONAL FOREX BUREAU· LTo. . .. . •. APPLICANT ANO THE TPUSTEES OF THE TANGANYIKA . NATIONAL PARKS. • • • • ■ ■ , • .. • , RESPONl)ENT (Application ior stay of exec~tiori from the jurlgment and decre~· of the High Court of Tanzania at Arusha) (Mrosso, J.) ··· datGd the 25th <iay of SepJember, 1997 in Civil Cnse No.• 33 of 1995 . ·.- .. - ~UL IN 'G•- · LUBUVA, _J.A~: In this ~ppl;cati~~' 'the ~~pli~ant, International Forex Bu~~eau Ltrl. is Sf><?king fr-om th~ Court ~!'l orrlP.r for: stay of execution in rcs{)ect of thP High,Covrt, Arusha, ih Civil Case No. 33 of 19_9_5' penrling the d~t~rmination of. the intended appeal. Af tc r the deli ~e ry of jurlgme~ t in that case· ( 25 ;9. 1997) 'a noUce of appeal wa_s loctged ori 3. H .1997. Tn support of _th~ appliq tion, an affi<'lavi t sworn by Robert Kimario, a ma1+ger of th~ applicant company was filP.~. . app1itati9n sue ct. the app{ic~nt,: Inte?r1atfo.ri.al_ Forex__ 13Llreau Ltd • ..•:. t~gither with th.e Nation.cil Bartk of Commerce. =. -,:; ·. ·. (MrossO\ .J.) enter.<ia "jITdg,-m~i;·t:_·:r"r(--:_t"avoiir~'ii·r:\he responr3cnt, the. Trustees of the Tanganyika.-1'Jat:i.onal.Parks~; The applicant was -~::~~:~~---t_::_l:ay th~ r;s~o~~~nt t~P. sum of q;s o/2nats 300,000 an'd to~eth~r with the Nationaj. Bank of Commerce. -th1:, applicant was also 01'.'rlPrPr1 to pay, thP respondent the int.P.rest 0f US Dollars 25 1 000 as well as 10% on thP dccretal amount. 2 .r·;.· . . · •.·'· . . ~~t Kimario, Manager of the applicant Comp~ny also filed ,. a supplementary affidavit under t"Ule 53 (2) of _the Court•~ rules. r~om these affidavits an~ the notice of motion, the followin, // reasoPs are advanced as grounds for se~king stay of execution: .I ! J 1. that the intended app_nal ·has overwhelming chancPs of success ~nd that if the appeal is successful the outcome of the _appeal would b~ rendered nugatory. 2. that if the order of ::itay . of execution . . is . . not grante"d and execution of the decree is effected, the appl:i.c:arft• s business will virtually coHapse b~cau·se the applicant in ttfe._ ~ol"P.ly°'..•· ·, .. :.... . . .. in9i,~y .1 s engaged _·:.;,.'_. . . changing . . business. 3. that on 9. 7.:1998, the applicant• s bureau de aq,6nge w_as r')bbed by armed robbers \~~~{~~ ,a~~y:::~ash-~~;-th. miili~h; of shiiiinsi; ··.· .. ----- . thus r.endedrig the appT-icant fihandally incepable, \ • - 4. that the applicant is ready .~o proviiie securi.ty in 'the form of immovable prop~r.ties on such te.rms . :.•·-· and . conditions . <!S the· Cburt . . may deem f.t appropriate. ··-·-·--- . Atth~ "tiearitig of this ~;~piication, l:1r. ~ughwai s. submis'sioris. 1 '.,,,--:"' were,bas~d Ori thE'Se grout@,i;, _Ir, 'the first placE', it was hh . '. . j_~ _·._ .· . . . . ~--. submission -that-unr!Ar.:r,uie: 9_ of. the Court's r1JlP.s the :c-ourt •· h~~: unfe ttP.reci ·disc re t1.i:i~f; in. gr anti lig(ofder s for stay/o;··=~=-c-~~~~ ·· - - . - - - )Jl.:·::.}.:>·.; _,_ . . · :. - - - .:_.: _ :- ._ . _. _ -... depenc'ling on the inr!ivichi'.al:: merits anct ci.rcumstances of the case. ·It. " 1 . . • rn'this case, hP urgeci, "_1/s ~the intended appeal has overwhelmin~ cha~ces of success,· the ·outcome of the int'enriE!d. appeal, if su~c~ssful would be rend~red nugabry by carrying it into execution 1,e, if stay cif P,X8cution 1s not gt";nted, As a result 1 • · .............. ···- . -·.· . . 1"' t .• .. · .. •· I 3 f✓.ughwai went o_n 1 his 1:-usiness involving:. mo"h~y ·changing. wpuid : ;:, ;. -- be brou9ht to a ·stanti ... still. J.his was ..sci; he s·a1d :011·,-=acc.:o~ri;~ ~f. ~ ~- :. ,~,.- 0 ,. : . . . . . the following reasons: F irst:, _t~e· <1ec'tr.iaf;.jlm-dh;~.,\.1.rfqlv,e~1A· .· ~ i,.._., . •.., -r .......... :~:/.... . .· / .$; .. ; • substantially ~a~ge sum of money i.e.·us ooll~ti'300,oo9 w~;~~i ,.• . ~ •:J" ·:-- :: .. l.f . :.•. tt ,. .. ._. . •• c:1t the. :appli~~.b_l_e ~ate of exchanges at the. ~-iffl~ was equfv8lent t?.,-. •·i;. .·r,.. Tanzania shillings ... million 156 • . •. .. · applicant• s bureau <le chang~ was inv~dcci ·.. l;)y ··ar)t\§d ro_b~.""'.s.,.!,/ho ··:· . ' . : . .;,..,.)J. • •. I • I •• took away cash in locai 1 _anri for.eig.n. curr:ency wo~th millions of -.,_. .. :._. _"(,- ... ,: ; . . . . ,:·_. •'.. ._ . .. · .. · .. ·._: shillings.· For thase':feasons ·a's well as :thE> fact .: that :,. .•.. ~:/" the tri~l . . -. · ...,. . . ~igh 8~~~-t' w/s satisfl:~d- that, ti.e·:res~x:m.o_e~t ~no the banki=!rs -~~ I •• .• . . -·---- - Warf! i~'tl;s~~i ; 1 oy 'the appH~a11t WP.re ;neglig'=.nt, Mr. 1-h.lghwai : . . . . .. ~ i- Ii, I• ·' .• •• .: .~ ...... . :. -:·: . : . ...•.=: .:· .: ,: ~·:•::.;; ~ 1- :· ... .. -•·· - - . . .. . .. . •.. -·- ·- ~--· . . . contended ,that t~e cireumstarice~i" cff-·ibe- CbSf.l WP.re· appt"Opriate for- ___ . ____ ... . : . .._: ;-· thP. Co\lrt' s ekerc1ie of i ts;_m{fettere~ ~j:~Cr'etion to order stay -: •, . ·.· • . • • I' .. T" •••·.•J'·k of execution. That"ls, 1-n lht=i circuni1:1taJ'.'.ces.9f. this case, even ... . • .. . . •--~- ' . ·•\". -i. ~- :·· . -..... ; ; . :..... grantPd. t}:lat ~-he· ?PPlfc~~~.·~-~~-- ~-h~ .. ~~.i.fi:~x ~~\P~.Y ,the .1?c.r?ta1··. ·. . . . . • . . . •. """'· •. . . ·.. ·. . _:.-:_···! . . amo~n\}~ e~ecutio~ of_t_he.. /~_ec~e';::~~~~f the~-.:~ 1 grea.t d_a~9.er, _ that thn applicant wou~d. n.c{t_ }?c-i. ablP.. to r~cover th~ amount of mol'.)ey - . • . ... '!. : : .,. . :_ .• : ! ....,.7}f.;i:;_.J.,. : 's; :: . :,.rt :.•·~--~-~~-~--ii~ -· ·. .;-_ .. ~-- ~ ~-> . . . from· the respon~~~t if ..1;hF.i'.;~ppE>~l _suc~eeds,. Mr~ Mughwai urged • . . - .•. : ••.. •. ·...... • ":. .:r1-..-- '-'..-.f·.•· .· .--~-~rn;~~'.~:·~.'-r~·~i♦ -rj': ~,·r.r,r'.f'.:;1,;~_· •~~. :tf;:::~:·:::::::::::1:::,::1::;;:r::::::~:;:;:::::.:::~:t•s· but . a~.s?, .,t~-~~~- ,~_er€_·~~-.- ~i1{sge~:ia~ 9i~c~~~-tance·s · to' W.qxr.ant 'the . JI grartt • •of-a . stay order •. ·f~ff~g'atj{:·.~p{-th~principles :'~).:.";?,' . . ..· . . .. . . . . urycl"(=!rlJing·· . . . . .· ·.. .· sb~ci:a1 circumstance~· to 1,~:;.taken in-~◊-icco\lnt 'in consi:deting· an apptication for a stay Ot"rl:r. Mr. ,N.gal:o··refet,red to th:···t1ecision ·_·._ ~) - . . -~ of; tha Cour.t in Civp Ap:e{lcntlop No:, 56 of;'1S95 Said. §alim Bakhressa V Ally A, Nqurne\an<l CJ,~il App11<;11,;tioc No. 7"'1. 'of 1996, Auto Tyre & .Tubes Ltd, arid Desa¼;&.C?i..&tcl. V General Tyre (E.A) .Ltcl, 4 -:., ..... 11·~ .Jr.·ler.scored was that in an application for a stay of ,,xecution pending the dP. t:?rmination o.f an intenrle<l appeal, 1 t is t( not enough to say that the intended ~~al has overwhelming ~___.......,.~~-:----------- ..·---------- --'· ·.'··- .·,_··'··~ :·---·----···-·--- -- .· -·-···:····-·-- ·-·~--'._.. . .-._ (( chanc:.~ ..-of success_.gn._9_p_p_~ Special circumstances war.ranting •-:--- . : the granting of a stay or~er. should be establiihed. In the I\ instant case, Mr. Ngalo countered, no such dr.cumstances exist in which casP. thP applic;i;!tion is <lev.oid of any mf:'rits. He further submitted to the effect that the appHcant 1_s his money changing bu:dness - bur.~au ctpc~a~~r_:ou:d virtual_:J --.;..--~--~~------:..._ apprehension that -~.-~"-• __ __;_ __ . collapse if execution is carriP.d out cannot be sufficient basis ...-----~-----'----· ~-.:..· ~~~. ~~ upon which the Court woul~juclicially exer.d.se its c'liscr-etion to ~- ·----- ~ . grant a s.ta-y-e"l"'('}~.. That th£- robber.y 1n6iri~nt that took place at .. .. the applicant• s bureau de change shop on 9.7.1997 was likewise unc-.:,nvincing ground to justify thP. application. The reason ·····--·· --------- . Mr-.. Nga . . lo... stated, was that~ .-. in the . fi i--~.t . place, the robbery incident .; ··•, ,•• (9.7.97) cannot be taken ~s ... -. an excuse . for d~nying. the responclent · . . . of his right to enjoy the fruits of ~he. ju~g~.~nt. passe.d in ~ favour because it took place much later aftefr t;his application ···----- . w~s ioclged on. 3.11.1997 • .}hat means that the application· seeking . to stay the execution of f~e ·oecree Jn/iavour of the respondent . was.i,t:d,t:Ja~ly based on ~~~~; grounds,. he urged.·• Fur-thermore~· ~ , ___ ->- ,--''•1,;;:-:N9a1:.; Ciiiii<ied;'"Tftahce·c····.•.:.:;·.;.: . c1u·.•.l·r·n.·sge· ~'.to· •.of·.. ·tht::supplemeritary-affidavit.. ·.'..·or. >i ·~t the': ~ppiit:a11t~ · iri -'; t~~ :armecl robber-y, <:ash money ··. . . ' ..in ioca1 '!ind foreign curr~h;:y wa~ takin. away worth million of . • ··,-·-· ·- ·-·-•·· ~h:Ltii11gs, .t.hen it means{¥hat the applicant had sufficient sums . . . of rrio"ney at the time the ,,e,pplicationi~as fil1;>r:!. ·. Even, ~·hen, the. ·······-i.,"~15f5p-'i:1c·1rnt··w-a's no·t·wuri~:~o hav~·.·_'·thJl~x~cuti~·n-·rJt;·thcr··ei-e-cr~-e· ·-····-·· ·-· -···-----•. carried out in favour of th;- respond~nt, Mr. Ngalo emphasized. Finally, it Was Mr. Ngalb'.1 s submissf9.r •that" the appHcant 1 s anxiety that lt would be difficult to rectJver the monE>y from the ... is 5 1 --...;~ondent ' iM the ·event tho appeal succee-ds w.9 s unfounded. This is_ so, Mr.-. Nga lo statP.d; because the responn~)'lt, the Tanganyika National Par.ks Lb~~, a cig national or.ganisation is not bankrupt, it has assets in various National Parks in the country in which c~s~, should the aipral succeed, thP applicant would have no difficulty in recovering the amount of money paid in execution of the decree. 'i:)'. /~h~1;119_ riot be c'lenie.q hi~. r;ght. _tQ_.!.rnloy _the fruits of the jungment . "" t l . spec i a l --c i t"cum~ .~AA~~t::~K'Ghow»·. ··. O_n· the othef hand,····1e-·1_·s .. , . ·•··· -1.tn.ess ,_-.. · ..ae·, lx_ :eso··r·cis_es.-ettl ef.<l aPt'riin.chltplef thatiwhf!n the· ·bthP.~party is appP.cilirig in l \ 0 9 0 appeal,.· the coui:-t is judicially enjoineq . to soO b it that the appeOl, if successful •• h ·oot cendeced \' nugatory. In the English c~se "of Wilson V Church (No. 2) ( 1879) :.-·: Co',.lrt oFApp~al s~t 6ut :tlie:,principle· iri-these •J: . . •' ••~I'. ~•.:, •• ;,,,. •"' . •~ ~ . . . . . . •-j• ~.~•:~ '"•!. •' ,:·; ·,:~• ' ~ ' .,. • ' ,. • .... ': .. ,:. , :- • ~ • '• 1 : . ~ , · · ,• .·.• ; /,J.;;, \-\~;_• -_·_ : , 11 WhP- re'~ an. un succa::s"sful -pa·r ty . is ex~'.¥c1sing : . an ·unrestrictedi~!ght ~ .:app(?.al ,. it is •.the· ,... ·, _:·:r .J _duty of th~ .~qu;r':~n ,?r<ii.n~rr.~9.r~S cto., ..._: make such order·';f6i." staying proce~ping~ i :- . '.. .. . ,. . : . ~- . . . .' . . : . : ; under• . th~ judgm~'nt . appealed from as will prevent thP. appeal; if· S\lcc~ssful;- from bein! nugatory. Y But the cour.:t will not .. -ihtet"f·ere --1-f-thi::f~~ppear app~~~r- ·r1;;F-tb"'' - - .. • \ ; • ' _ . . , • .. -H•• ••• • . . . . . •-,---:-•• be- bonafide 1 as there are":.cther. sufficient exceptional circumstances. 11 ... ...... · In this· application the question that f~lls for consirleration ~---------.,..---,---.,. is whe th<: r thr, re :ire such spr-kial ci rcumst~t~j_us_t_i_! y_i ~C,L_.t_})C .· lJ --if_.x_ ·issuance of a sta'y·orner~:Cri.the·fit:st place, th~ applicant 1 ;··_-·-;t·•!---,!f'· .... ·.::es.s in an intended appeal depE'nding on the individual circumstances of the case, may we1; be_ a factor to be consi<iered in an application for. stay of P.Xecution. In certain situations however, it is not easy to gauge meaningfully the chances of success in an intended nppeal before hP.aring the submissions from both p~rties. In the case of Transport Equipment Ltd. and "qegirialii Jof:O. Nolan V t\evram Valambhia, civil Application No. 39 of 1995 (not yP.t r.epor.ted) the Cour.t held a similar. view. In this c~se, from a cursory glance throughthP. d~CUIJlP.nts filed, it is nouptful that the cirC,umstances o{ the case are such that ~'---"-'-~-'-'--•=·•··o:..··-----·..._...._. ·_•-•-_ _--i:ilie chance·s of success of th~ intenctect a~J~·al could~ with any ") 7 , ., 'imoiJnt of CPrtainty be assess~cj at this stage meaningfully. I rE'ject this ground. Then ther.e is the question. of thP./:·¥~1lity of the applicant, · the judgment <ieb.tor, to pa)!:~ Al t)16ugh at the hearing of the . -... . :., . . application Mr. Mughwai, lea-rned _counsel was nC,t in a position .. •. . . . ....· . . . to cite any decided case ini;'~upport of ,the view- thatp6v~rty is. one of the facbrs to lie co11si<1P.red in an application for stay . . . . ..of ~xecution, none,~l')P.less, Lt is an esta~lished principle that -i this factor in w-ar.ranting cir.cumstances is usually taken into ,., (;; ace Oont; !n the m• t te r bef~r~ .,;~ , Mr: M>J gh~ ai h~ s strong 1y i. ·urge'd that as thP. amount requirP.d for. settling the <l'=cretal . -~·--/,:-'. :, ·:··· .. ,' ·. .. ~, .. '. - am6u11t.is so . . large that if f~.C?c:ut1:0_11_ i_~,~<:;,,::in~ 01:1t the npp{ica·· t• i: 0 inonri-y changing bu.!ilnt>ss would virtually <:qll/\psP.. Iii my consicier!":c opinion; tM inability t-.:i pay shouldl:iE?_'{tlal~fif'd in orrler to . dis'tinguish between a jungme_nt debtor ·,._;'j;o · 1s ,~onafide incapablE'1; .' 1· of paying the dP.cretal amount and a jun:~ent rlebt?r who is ( 'capable but is apprehensiVP. 0f the C')T\S,6cfuences after paymHnt. t'rolT\ the- afficiavitu filer1 in this ma.tt,n·, · it _is clear that at ..• /7 J. 7 '- 1 ·-, tirr,<?. thP. npplication was fil~d; {30,11.97) robbPry hac:1 not i ,1kel" place at the applicant• s bureau <ie chang~. Following the rob'l:>e-ry inc:irlent, it is also admitted by thP <'.ipplicant that millions of cash in local and foreign currency was stolen. In that casP., as s1,1bmitte.d by Mr. Ngalo, it seem~ to me that at th<> time when the application was longed, the, applicant _was financially capable of paying the decretal amount but as stated, h1:> was not prP.parP.rf to do so. In the result, I am unable to accept thP. robbery incicient as a specil:)l . . . ...,circumstance ·-. ·_}_' . . warranting . . ·.. . · . . ·. • .· _. a denial of. th_~__, re~_2,!;!~':t}!.~.JL,~right tc,\,,~'~ioy the fruits of· the 0 -,,'lf-:,-..•.-.•.-.a-...------s---s--• -,"--~=-~~:--------- -jurlgment and ~ecrne in hi~ favout •. ·. ~t-it~e'rtliore,. the applicant• s • . situation in my 1iiew, is not so much ~;~:,sed on his incapacity t;o , that, his business wouln vir._tually <cd:~:~Jl~~ ~f: exe9uti~on •i_s · cat-ried out. This, with respect, is n;{ iti m·{ corisirlereci viP.W, ,such' cetego't"y of poverty ot' inability to pay o'~, the p~:tt of the ' ' judgment debtor that wou,ld be rP.gar-..-led as spP-c:iel circu1ilstance upon which stay of execution could be. gr~rited. As this Coutt · · held in Applic':!tion No •. 71 of 1996 1 · Au'to '.I'yl'.'e & Tubes Ltd. ani! -:n~sai & Co. Ltcl. V Genf'l'.'a1 Tyrt'> (E. A.) L·td. (\inrep?rtei:l} such an -.-ev~ri.tuaTity~· 1s'-a: Ji'ofmal r.i~k-·that iiAh~'g_mfir11f!d~ot◊r)1oiman;- ···· ·,,,.-,,·_,;"CC•C·cc,,,·;L_ ;~:\;'.~i-, :th ,tease ' ' I am not ii,.-., 'is '.subjeC ted to~: ' ·In ther dt-eui'n~ t!!in¢~ 1 ':•:_t_ satls~~c~:- t~a_t_thP_ applkn;J; s app~;;~l~i!~n___ t_bq: ~~: ~~~~i=ant•s ...... -"> ,businP.ss .would collapse if ·-·· ._exec.ution ·. ,. 15-'carri~ci out is· such special circumstance upon wfikh st~Y: i¥°Y~xecuhon ls to be gran'.-.ed .. ' It is not enough. ·. ··<ilit1{:.. Finally, I wish to briefly deal with thP ground that if the .. -··-\~it:/:·~-_·..- :. applicatio'I' is· not granted, the app},fd~nt wou}cl ~e subjected to substantial loss and that th~ appea).:ff'.f!:PU:1:d be render.erl nugatory •. From the jurlgm€'rt of· thP High Court i t i·s appare.nt that thP. High Court founn as a fact th~t .the applica~t r~c~ive~ US Dollars 300,000. ' Th~t is the basis upon which execution pr.oceedings egainst the applic,,.nt WP.r~ initiated. For thc\t r'?~son, I do not accf'pt Mr. Mughwl\i' a submission that the i,pplicc:int would be subjected to a loss that could be describP.d as subst3ntial and · incape};)~e._ of bP.ing atoried by way of dam;ig'3s;; such a loss, I am --- ... lncliMd to think, is c~pabl.:;i of. _bein<J qu,rntifierl for paym<:?nt by way of damages in the event appeal sµcceer.l s. In this case 1 apar.t from the applicant's assP.rtion -~. that th~ 3pp~~1 would be . . 'ren,:lf!red nugatory, no evirtenc~ ha':ANfl~n a,Muced to show that the respondent would be unable to -~~~y . 1:.hn emou'nt peid in •,' iatisfaction of the ;if:'lC~e in t_he.}~~~#i .... -..... ---··---· ··------·--···· th; int~nded appeal ~tcceecl s. -In the case of Baker V:,•; ':, , 188:4 14- QB. D 769-;- -the .X. ' \ .. . . iriiportance df pr.ovtng the s'. inability to pay ~as .... ·} unclerscor:e"• In this case, a's o1'served the •appiicant has not done so. And so, I accept Mr. Ngalo:i:s submission that the· Tanganyika National Parks Ltd., the respon~ent~ hc,s sizeable properties in various National Parks in the country. For that reason, it stancls t6 t'eason that in the everit of the appi=>·a1:: · .·.. • .. ····-··' .. being successful,-the--ap~licant •. Wo~l~ be ·paJd oc,ck the amount · 1evied in execution of the rle..cre~:~\( ·- .. ··-·· --···-·--- ·--·-··· ' ·consequently, I ;1k'~ati'$:fi~;a'that no special circumstances o.z~· hli;,;13tivA·· JUSTICE;Ot APPE,\L '! I l I I, !! I