19891111 TZHC Dar es Salaam 1

.) . . .. ;: ~- ,, ._, .. . . -~ TEE UJ:UTED ~ t I C OF TAIJZAHIA . -· - - :m THE, IITGH COURT OF TAlmAIUA AT DAR ES S1\.LAAM CIVIL CASE- NO• 74 OF 1986 JOHfJ.fflES IGOGQ jJ O • • G O O • • • • • • • t PLAINTIFF versus Tli.NZlJUA Dl..IRY FARMING CO• IJrn. · • A ◄ .. a ., DEFENDANT .. J UDG J,1'E MT·a ./ WJit..TI, JI This· is a. suit for damages. The plaintiff Johannes I.g~go is· <;,laimil'lg for the followings (i) General damages for maJ.ioiotts prosecution in excess of 200,000/-. (ii) Su:rre11der of 10 heifers c.1nd 6:bulls or shs.84,000/~ in defa,.,ut being value of 16· head of oattle (iii) Shs.1,296,000/.. be'i11g gross :u1.0ome from milk muoh would have been obtained fro~ the head of cattle oonfiiloo.tcd: by the dof011.Clant• ~e plaintiff'' s oa.se was that he was a livcstoolc keeper at Utei-i, Tarimo Diatriot since 1978. Ha usod to buy ·dairy oattle from Utog;i. Dairy Farm which wae a subsidiary _of th'3 defendant oompa.i.v, He boU€ht dairy oa.,i;tlc :f'rom Utegi _1 Dairy Fa:r.-m in 1980 D.nd 1981. He usocl. to get: -milk from his cattle ~1d. .ho would sell it oith01' in his hotel or at tho Utegi Dairy Fnrm. In 1951 either on 23rd June o:r 24th June, Police and the Manager of Utegi Dairy Fa mmt to the plaintiff' 1s fro-m and soizod 16· heifer-a, 6 of which wore .of age and had boe11 L"'locmina.ted• The :rest 1-rore still youi1g but thoy had been weaned. They took tho. 001ro to Utogi Dairy Farra while tb.e plai11tiff 1-r2..s talccn to tho Police .Station and charged with stealing that cattle-. Tho oaso was finaJ.izod in cot~t on 31 /5/83 and tho plcintiff was acqui ttcd a.1-w. an o:rdcr raad.e that his cattle be returned to him4 T110 plci.ntiff prodoood the judgmm.1t of the court as exhibit D1. Be also produood ?ivc receipts as exhibit P2. · Those receipts were for purchase of oc.1.:'Gtle fron Utogi Dni.:ry Fm1m by tho plaintiff~ . " • - 2 - But: the plaintif'".f did not show 'the P-0lioc those receipts when t::i.cy OJ.."l."estcd him as thGy did not ask for them. IIo only cllowGd thosG receipts la.tor when ,I tho oaso wt>.s p:roooeding . in court. 'When -'1foo manager of the Utogi Dairy Fam ·gavo oVidoncc, ho 001tl'il'J:1ed that ·bhesc receipts wore from Utcgi Dair,y' Fa.rm t'ltd thn.t :they hc:.d boon signed by the fal:B 1 s accountant ono Scn:,,i,U'Ulca. Mtcr tho District Couxt·i s oJ;'dor that the plaintiff is cattle bo rotc:mad to him had boon made, tho 02-,t'tlc were not rd1.U'1lCd 'to hiD until 15/11/85 after tho pla:i.nti:f';f' had mo.do cll of'f orts to got tl10 on.ttlo back. T"noro vras a lot of oorrospondonoo botwoc,1 tho courts and ·bJ.,.e dcf'cndnnt before the oo.:lriilo wore restored to tho ple.inti:E'i'.- Tho plainti:t·Z p:roducod 2 letters fi..on thci District Magistrnk to tho Jfr•..nngcr of' the clof'cndcmt .as exhibits P3,. Thora ;•ms even a. letter -'co t:.10 District Rogistr.?.J:' High Cou.rt of Ta.nzr11ia :Dihronza, from tho plcintif'f' in oon:1cction with this natter (cxhibi t P4) • Thero W[I.S o. reply to thn.t lotter ( c:cl1ibi t P5) • ~..10:ro 1-rr-.s yet nnothor lotter ~ora tho Senior Resident l:'l".gistrr:.to 11usoma. to the Di:3trict MngistrD,i;e Tc'la'ino ( c.xhibi t P6).. Other co:rrcspondcnoc was a letter from the State Attorney lhrru.tzn. to the Wo.c"'lagcr of Utcgi Dr-,Jry Fa.rr:i ( cxhibi·t ~·) a.nd. even n. court 01"dcr aclc1ros.scd to tho Police at TQ.!'ino (ox.hibit P9) 01ld aJ.so a lotter froo tho Distriot Nagistrc.to Tn.rir:10 to tho Police Torino· ( GYJti.bi t P8) • ·.All this oorrcspondcri~o wao geared tovnµ'ds tho rclen.sc of tho cn·t·Uo to the plaintiff by t:'J.o dcfcndnnt, It W<'vS clue to the co1-1.rt o:rcJ.or ( cxhibi t P9) thn.t tho plain:titti s oa:ttlo wore cvcir'GIJ.ru.ly rclcasect to hin o:;,1 15/11/85. IIo should, however hc:.:vo got tho cattle on 31/5/83, nrunoly, tho do.;r when his case· in tho District Court ondod. The plcinti:i:"£ stdod f't.1.Xthcr th2..t ho got c. loss duo to this l011g dcley in rclen.sing his oo.,ttlo,. Tho cattle rnrnt lmvc produced ccl.vcs "du.ring this period while in tho :1m:.cls of tho c1.o1cndc.nt 1 m1cl the dofondnnt took tho cclvos nnd xoturnocl only 16 cows without tho ori.J.vc:;;... L.lso tho whole lot o:f th0 16· cows woro bci11g Dillcod when they were ro-'cu.r~1od to tho plcintiff • T'.t1e plcintiff stc.tod tha:'G ·b:.10 dofondc..nt rust hc.vo boon getting mill:: i'I'on tho plaintiff's cows ru.1d selling it., Tl...10 pln,inti.t.-'-'f wont on to state -that oocordil1g to his oxporionoo with · cn.ttlo rcoring, tr~o first 6 cowa vroulu. hrrvo produced offsprings twioc in the period they wore wi·th the dcfondrn.rt l)o0Cl.1.so they were of age. I'hr,,t would mean 12 cclvcs. T'.u.on also tho 10 c·ows which hoo. bean wee.noel at the tine of soiZUI'c f'ron the pla.:i.ntiff woulcl clso ha.vo produced of':f sp:d.11gs n.t least onco .in tho period. fron tho orclo:r for rcstora.tion of the oows to tho plcinti.ff up to: -~J.1e o.otucl rcstorc.tion, Tho.t woulcl cone to 22 o~:J:vos vaJ.ucd a.t shsJ3tf,OOo/..., . Titc o.tllor: ~·~·. loss, wco:r<l.ing ·to the plnintiff, is 1n.th rogr.'.Xd to tho oillt whicb.. tho plcintj.ff wov.ld ho.vo got c.nd sold• .- Tho plQ.intif'f scid tb.c.:'i; a cow· could proclnoc botwoon 15 and 25 li tras of nillc per dey, n.nct n. litre sold n.t sb.s•12/= or 7/90 up to 9/30 if it wo.,s sold to the Dairy Faro of t.ho clof'cndn.nt. TotE'J. incooo for the period the oows ware with tho dcfcnd..-:-.:rit wo1..ucl be shs.1,296,000/".'• luso the plD-inti:tf _was olcioing done.gos in tho region of ru1s.200,ooo/. :tor dcfru:iation du.o to tho oalioious prosecution c.nd spooinl. dnnngcs o.s per plaint. In oross-oxc.nil1r/i;ion JGho pl1:d.ntif"l s2..id -tho:t he used to 'buy dQ.iry co.ttlo Ea dcinod buying blind or useless co;i:.·i:.lo :aoo Utogi Dniry Fnxo bocc..uso J.::..c . ""~ scid that,-..owncd no 'butcho:ry. Concerning his ·arr.est_ ro1d. prosocu"i;ion, he scicl thi"'.,t he w2..s kopt in custody over night. Couoo:ming tho nur:ibo:t of doi:cy cattle ho bought t'ron Utogi Dci:cy Fa.rn, ho scid that they vrore 20 :f'rosic.1ll clci:ry 02..ttlc c~sting not 1:>elow 4000/= ca.ch. Tho pl2..in"viff cl.so prcctucod o.s c~J.ibi t P10 a report whic:1 ho had propc.red which showod how ho arrived at the figv.i"'o with rognxd to· Dilk o.nd l'll.o::er of cclvcs which 1rould he.VG been produ.oocl durfa"lg th.e,t period whon ·hho co.ttlo w2.s w:i. th tho dofondant,.· In its dcfonco, the dof ondru:it crllod two wi tnossos. Th0 :fiI'st wi tnoss ·· wn.s JTornnt1 Shcyo (DW1), tl10 ·A.ssistnnt Nc.;,12.gcr 0,t Utogi Dairy Ft'.TO whon ovonts loruli11g to this Ol1.SO ooou:rTcd., He snicl th2.:i; Utogi Dniry Fnxn wno keeping 'Dci:ry Cn.ttlc nnncly f':rision cows. Tho F&--n used to sell 1:1ilk to its ~stonors · rutd also bulls but not f'on::ilc cows. T".10 fonn.J.o cows were classifiocl ns wee.nor heifers, brooding h.cii"ors n.nd n.dul t cows. For bulls there were woanor bulls o.nd brooding bulls. Tho Fn.rn had cll ·the □c typos of' c:'.llii:mJ.s ahown ohovo.- Only nilk c::md brccdi:.1(; btuls or wco.no1-- bulls could be sold. T'.b.o rnrw sold bulls to the plmntiff who had his f'o.r1:1 jt1.st 1100.J:"by, a.nd n. blind hci:for wc.s also sold to hin 1 1mt no proper heifer wr.-s sold to hin• Bottrccn April o.nd ):t..-w 1981, tho plclnti:ff went to tl:e Fn.rn -~o buy bulls. The Fun sold hin 15 'btills. Two nonths 11:1.tcr the w1:'moss cliscovorcd tha.t in the hoif'01•s group of tho Fn.rIJ there WC'.i.""c ten bulls, 2nd ten lloifcrs wcro nisoi..'l'lg, T'.t.10 F:'.'.J:D usod "co g:ra.zo bulls rold. hcaifors scrr,ro..tcly ► Thcs.c ten bulls wcr.o those w21ioh had boon sold to Jvhc plci.·rliiff nncl the on.r 1:1o..rks had been ronoved.. Ill.~ .. Shoyo then went to ropor.t the nn/i;tcr to the Police St::-.tion, onc1 his collo~oi..tos wont to tho fm'D of the plcintif"l',. T1..1cro they seiz9d 10 hoifors which thcj-~ idcirbifiod to bo f'ron Utegi Dc.:i.ry F2.J:'n. The plcin tiff ho.cl no_ ~lru:ic.tion for the prcso11cc of thoso hcif'cro i11 his fax□• l~t one Jliiuc ho snid thnt t>.o;{DigM; 11.D.ve got r.rl.xod with his bulls a.nc'!.. r,,t a.nothcJ'." tine he so..icl that he hoo. bred the heifers which were fron Bcraki Sister.st Fam. When tho other cot-rs of t!lc pln.intif:f l-TCl'C choclcod, six narc l1cii'ors bclongil1g to the defendant Fero wcro found• " Those were idcntif'iccl by the dcfc1'ld::-11t cnployocs due to tho nai-ks on than, o..nd cspccfo.lly bcoo.twc ono of tho heifer □ hc.d only one. eye. 1:.gnin tho plcintif'f w2.n 1-u1['.l:>lo to c:::q:,lain how he o.:,;-Je b~ then. Tho defcnd::1.nt then kept t:ricso ho ifors tcl;:cn f'ron the ple.intiff' s fc..:m i11 Utegi Dairy Fm"i:1. Thon Dl11 011d others r:iadc -tlloir st2,teoo;.1ts to -t;;::.e Police c.ncl. tho c2.,so s·liCJ:cccl in 1983• Tho witness tcnclcrec1 c.s exhibits clui:>licc:te of receipts issuect to ~ho plcintiff, and tho receipt l)ooks f'ron where these ::receipts were issued,. Mt•• Sl.1l\"}ro (DW1) cl.so <L:\:i, · •]. the:c the oonplc'.lint fo the polioo wn.s without just cruse. Conoe?nine -~he loss cl:i.ci:;cd by tho pln.intif'f to lw;vc bcm1 su.ffc:rod, I:lr., Shcyo scid thc..t it W0s ·rwt correc·b. ln cross-GL:lim1n.tion? Mro Sh~ro wcs sJ101m pho·l;ocopy rccoiJ)ts 110 5501 and 5561 which s21owccl r-; ,.,,...; ,'-'~--~~ ,.,.~,, .. I"\ ,~,.,.: ,~~--:: ~::: :::::.c:::. -~-~-.-cly sold to tho plc:d.ntiff' by the Utcsi Dair,y" Fc.rr.1. He conocclccl.. ~ha.t tlw aiGJ,1atures on thc;:i were those of tho Utcgi Dairy F[',l'T.1 c..ccm.m-i;.::'..r.t bu-'i; 210 sdd thc.-'i; he did no·b o.g-~cc with thcoc receipts as ·l;llcy h~l sorJe crGS1.J.res. Ho o.lso nclni ttcd thc.t ho kept the !J.oifors tmich were scizccl f'ron the i'r.rr.1 of the plcintiff ancl ·i;b:d; ·W.1e sc.no roproduccd anc1. tho Utcgi Dai:ry f.';J.I'n cot niJJ!.: :fron than. As for the ..J:>Ccd.pts l·Jhich tho plaintiff procluocd c:t llis· tricJ., 1:h>., m:.:.eyo scid thr;f; ho fov.nd · then to be f orgcrics 1Jo0CLwo :1cife:c·s oo·.;_lcl 110-b lJo sold to c cu stoner without loD.VC f:roo tho General Ec;.;.1o.gcr, Mr. Sheyo also c..c1.JJi ttcd thd Utcgi Dc,:i.J."Y Fm-i:i did. not rctu1"11 the seized heifers of' the plcintiff c,n per court orclor" Ile &so sc'.lic"L thc;b c\. heifer could be i.l1een.i.nc:teG'.t. when i·~ wn.s o..t lee.st 24 nonthc old oml thn.t when tho case in the District Cotu~t cuclocli tho soizocl J:.oifors wore ogccl between 12 nonths ·n.nd 18 nonths• Another wj:tnor,!r:, ·F'm~ +.1,,... r1r;:'.\~nrl:-,.nt Br01-m Nyingi (DvT2) c:'..lso {Xo,VO ovidonce. Ro r;avo s:i.nilar O':i,r.i.dcnco ··::: thc.t o:t' Dt-r1. Ho sdd in cross~"J.ti...11.::::tion thnt cows. which wore n,t brcccling stneo i::.1 1901 would have rcprocluccd 3 ~:i.r.1os up to 1985. Ho also smcl th2.,t 'by -t-ho encl of 1982 tho 10 woe..ncr hGifm~s soizod f':roo the pl::d;.1tiff' rs fc:.;rn l:c:.cl rco..chGd lJJ:cochnc; s-ii<'IJG nml th[l,t by 1985 they would have .rcp:rocluced twicc6 Ilo conf'i:rnocl th0t out o:i:' tho hoif'ors seized :c"ror:.1 tho plcinti:ff, two he.cl rGp:rocluccC:. by the tine D1t2 l0f·c in 1985 M(l t:1crb sono ho.cl clio(l• llt tho conclusion o:f t20 dcfc:1delrb 1 s c2.,sc thcrc:ibilmred- sv.bnissions. Mi.... Nc.rc..nclo, le2X11ed Cou..:1scl for the pl2.,:i11tif'f conceded that the prosecution of tho plo..intif:f ,ms not nc-'GU.[',tccl by r.~clico in tho,t thG plcintiff novcr showed tho receipts in roopoct of the pur-chuso of' tho ca.tile until when ho wn.s def.ending hir.1so],f ~ "'t • I - 5 -. Re howavor subr..ri. i;-~od that tho plc.intii'i' 1100.. proved thc..t ho pt.u~ohc.soc.l ·l;ho on:'li·clo lr.wfu.lly,. On reliefs clninocl, 1-:;;r,. m..1.r<'llclo subnittod. thd Ji;ho plC1,i.ntiff had givon ex-.,:>ort eviclonco on how he wc..s rom.-ing cattle nnd thc.t tho clofonclo..nt could not oou.ntor oxhibi i; D10 which ohowod how r.. cow roproclucod o.;nd how r.ru.oh nilk could 1JC obtr..inecl fror.1 it. IIc concludod tho..t tho dof0nclnnt ho.cl not handed over tllo cc..t-tlc to tho pkintiff ~1d tho.t they shotud bo oroerud to POiY' the vo.lue of tho ca-ttlo encl tho of'fsprir1<3's not StUT01ldorod. On tho othc:r he.ml, Miss Iiijo..s:i.ri lcc1.1"'llccl ootu1scl for tb.o clo:,;o:nclc..nt sub- Di tJcad that tho orir.1:i.J.1::,l procooc.ings r.ec..insJG tho plv,intiff wo:i:c no-'li 11."',liciously insti tutcd., She rofoJ:'j,_~ocl the cou:rt to V1.:J:'ious authori tico on t~::is r.1atji:o:r;. I:.s to tho issues f'rc.aod, J\Iiss I:Ijnsiri lof't it to tho cotu..~t to decide about tho receipts of tho pl2.intif'f sl:.01-rlnc; his purchases i'ron t~10 c'loi'<mdnnt' s fro:'IJ. But oho onphc.,sizcd thc:t tho clci'cnclc.11t' s wi tnossos he1.l c2:bet3"oricn.lly str..tod tho..t heifers could not be sold. Co:-1corni:r,e tho reliefs olcir.1od, Hiss 1.1jo..siri Sll.1Ji:tl·bfocl tho..t cl:-..r.Jz,.go s he.cl fo be proved• Fron tho. subaissions of both counsels, it is plcin thc.;b tl:.ore is no issue conco:rning r:U1liciou:::i prosecution bocn.uss tho plointiff~ s counsel oonccd_os thc.t tho prosecution w~ no·b c1,0tu.D,tod by c.uico+ 0 When Jello plo..intiff wc..s n.i..""Tostocl, · • ho never produced the receipts which ho ovcntuc..lly produced in oourt a.this tricl (exhibit P2). vT:i. th rogo.xcl to -'c21c first isSl'!.G 1vl:.iol1 roa.cls s 'Whether tho plr~1ti.ff' pt.'!.l'Cha.sod 20 hoif'crs fron tho clofonclc.nt in 1980 c.nd 1981 for tho purpose of' prodll.Otion o.nd s2.lo of r.ulk$. thcro c.:rc fou.r rocoi:..:,ts no 5561, 5466~ 5540 ~1d 5501 ~-~1 which show a to·cc...1 of c:b lcc.,st 19 ~cn.-i.J..c c2,ttlo purch2.,sod by tho plaintiff f:ron tho do.fondnntis clcirJ fnxn (oxhi1Jit P2.). They o..rc signed by t~:o defendant's rocoimtant. Tho firot clc:fonclo..nt ts 1·ri tnoss nc1.ni ttocl that tho rccoipts had tho sie'J.12:ruro of the clofonclm.rtt ~ .1,0001.mto..nJti-e Ac1cloc.1 to tho.ct is thG cvic"!.cnca of tho pl0:i.ntiff hinsolf Jcl,::-.t ho wr.,,s buying fcoclo cattle or hoifo1•s for .. broocliTIG purposes. 011 t,!10 other hc.ncl the dofcnco wi tncssos tosti:fiocl that tho dofnndant 1 s c1£'.iry :fc..rn wo..s not solli1"43' heifers to n.nyonc unless peroission wo.s given by the Gcncrn,l Mo..no.gcr. I oc..:r1.J.10t soc how tho do:fencl~1t' s oltin 0~1 succood in view of those receipts issued 1)Y tho dofe11d[ll1t's onployoo. I ti.'1.orof'oro nnswor issue 110111 in the <t.ffirr.mtivo thn.t tho plaintiff purchasod c.t loo.st 19 hoi.fcro n·on tho clcfond,_·,..n.-t- Tho noxt issue 1:1u.st cloo..rly be c:11m-rcrod in the nngativc 1Jccw.so it was obviously not ln,wf\.11 :for tho dcfonclr.nt to refuse to surrender tho oc:-:'ctlo to tho plo.intif'f' i1:1.i-:1ccl.io..foly a.ftcr tho Tc.:rino District Court order of 31/5/83. vTo lmow fron the ovic"!.enoc of the plci.lrtitt tho.:t tho c attlo was rott1.r11oc1 to hin 0111.y 011 15/11/85,_ But oven then only ·l;ho origincl 16 heifers woro r~tu:rnod to hin without their o;rfsprings, i -6- Tho le.st issuo is tl10 general ;nc 't--rh~~\ts to what rolio.f ax-a ·l"J.lo pm-tios .entitled, ln :us cviclonco, ·tho plnj;~f . produced - c~iil~iii ~O showing how hGif ors bG~mvccl with rcgm--cl to 1Jroodi1ig, o.nd ·in p~~tiottl.m- hoyr the soizod heifo:rs u~i.st hc.vc hol1c.vcd, <'.l:..c1 how often they r.ru.st J:i...·wo produood offsprings in tho pc:docl of over .2. yocrs when they wore under the custocly of the dof'c-nc1.rm-liw I11.c.icod. in so□c wcy tho dofoncl['.J:ltr s wi tnossos Sll.ppo1--tcd this do01..i.no11t ( oxhibi t P10). Jrurthornoro, tho plr,.,intiff ola.bor~tccl in hi:3 oviclcnco how t4osc hoifors were likely to go·t inprognrrtot1 2.1tcl hm·r :O...".J.1,Y offspri:ngs they woultl have procluccd fo-x ·thc;t poriocl of soizuro1 [)J.lcl 1low ouch Dilk th0y woulc'.. hc.vo proclucocl, Thero 1ms no serious oviclonco fi'on -~ho d.cfo• nclont to ohnllc11go tl,.o ostinc.tos nn.clo by tJ.io plointiff • In his pl2.iltt tho plaintiff ha,s show;.1 t::.•o.:t tho 16 hcif'ors which wcro saizod, woulcl lia.vo producocl ['.,t la<.,st 10 for.1c.lo of-fsilririgs ro1.d 6 nc.J.c o:f'f spnings cltll--i.:.'lt'.r _·liho period o:r tho soi~c. Ila has pu.t shs:c·.6,ooo/"".' c..s price for co.ch :fonalo o?.fspri.l1g o.nd shs.:4,000/... for cc.ch nalo offspri11<s, r:12.k:i.ng n, tota.l of' 84,000/'.':"• Then ho has ·i;clrnn 10 lit:ros por cow per cl.cy :f'or 540 cloys a.t shs.15/• por lctro, ncldJ1g n, totc.l of sl:.s.1,296 1000/=• This woulcl havo bocn the :i.noono :i.~on tho nillc. As I scict a~~lior on, th01~0 i □ no evidence to chcllcne;c those ootii:mtcs of prioc cml incono. I woulcl, tho:roforc, in view of o:irhi'bit Pf01 ~oo tho.t tho cstin2.:',;02 given by tho plc,i:ntiff ~c cor:roct. I wov.id ·thorcfora ontcr judgr.:.011t for ·l;ho_ plaintiff in -1:;hc ou□- of' sb.s.84,000/.. boi1,e tho voJ.uo of tho oettlo not roturncd to hiD n.nct slw, 1, 296,000/. being tho incono 1-rhl.ch tho plaintiff would h2,vo got f'ron niDc:. /J.n for tho olcin o:f nalicious prosecution, for rcri..sons giY011 n.bovo, I would disniss i·l;., Since tho plr:d.ntif".f !:c.s succoodod ill two of his pr!'.yors, I ardor thn.t ho got hnlf' his costs in this suit. Also I orc1.cr the.:~ -bb.o dccrotn,l anount be with :i.ntorost n.t tho oou:rt 1 s rdo in viaw of tho prcycr in (iv) asking :for ~1-Y other roliof' as tl:is COUl"t sho.11 docn ju.sit. It is S'O ordorc(l. A,, Bl:JiltTI ' JUDGE 14/11/1989 Ju,dgncnt dclivcrocl. Counsels. prosont. .AT DAR ES- Sli.IJ•.AH c=:·-~----- i4(11/198~ JUDGE "