LENARD BARNABA LUCHAGULA CONSENT JUDGEMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (IN THE SUB REGISTRY OF SHINYANGA)

AT SHINYANGA CIVIL CASE NO. 303874 OF 2024 LENARD BARNABA LUCHAGULA …..............................PLAINTIFF

VERSUS TIANPIN (T) INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LIMITED................................................................…DEFENDANT

CONSENT JUDGMENT 20th & 20th January, 2025 MASSAM, J: - This consent judgment emanates from deed of settlement dully signed by the Defendant and Plaintiff on 15th January, 2025. The Plaintiff instituted this suit against the above-named defendant praying for judgement and decree for following reliefs; - i. That this honourable court be pleased to declare that the defendant has breached the contract. ii. An order for the defendant to pay the plaintiff specific damages of Tanzania Six Billion only. iii. An order for payment of general damages by the defendant an amount to be assessed by this Honourable court 1 iv. Interest on principal sum at commercial rate from the date the cause of action arose. v. An order for payment of 7% interest on the decretal sum from the date of decree to the date of full settlement vi. Costs of this suit be borne by the defendants. vii. Any other Reliefs(s) this honourable court may deem fit, just and equitable to grant. The plaintiff was represented by Mr. Benard Otieno advocate while the defendant enjoyed the service of Mr. Isaac Mwaipopo. On 20th January 2025 when the matter came for hearing, Mr Chrisantus Chengula advocate holding brief for both advocates informed the court that, parties by consent they had signed deed of settlement and prayed that this court to adopt the same as the decree of this court and mark this matter settled and proceed to

issue consent judgment under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code [Cap 33 R.E. 2019]. I have dispassionately gone through the deed of settlement filed 15th January 2025 which signed by both parties in terms of under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code Cap. 33 RE 2019. I am satisfied that the same was mutually consented. 2 In the view of the above the deed of settlement is hereby recorded and adopted to form part of consent judgment as prayed by the parties on the following orders: - 1. That, the Defendant has been exempted from paying the reliefs mention in paragraphs i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi and vii of this Deed of Settlement.

2. The costs of the suit are waived.

3. The Defendant has agreed and has already signed agreement with the Plaintiff to hand over seven (7) PMLs (Primary Mining Licenses) to the Plaintiff and the same has already been presented before the Ministry of Minerals for legal requirement to be complied with so that the Defendant can own the same. The said agreement has been attached as annexture TIAN1. By this consent decision, therefore, this court hereby declare that parties hereabove have resolved their dispute and this suit is marked settled on the compromise of the parties, as evidenced by the terms agreed under the said deed of settlement. For the reasons aforesaid the deed of settlement signed by the parties and filed in this court constitute the judgment and decree of this court. It has been emphasized in the case of Motor Vessel Sepideh and Another vs Yusuph Mohamed Yusuph and Two,Civil Application No. 237 of 2013 (unreported) that 3 where there is a lawful agreement or compromise ,the court is bound to record settlement once it is arrived by the parties. In light of the above preceding, this suit is marked settled to the extent of the consent settlement order reached by the parties per the terms and conditions contained. It is so ordered. DATED at SHINYANGA this 20th day of January , 2025. R. B. Massam Judge 4