19851113 TZHC Mwanza

IN rrir-m~ }iIGii COURT OF TANZANIA _ ..1....~ '. . AT MW.ANZ.A _.._ •. (H. c.. ) _CIVIL AHl,AL NO •. 19/64 (From thE decision of the Dist:r;-ict Court of Musoma in~. Civil Cas~ No.· 61/83) M.ARWA MUGABU ••• oi:i0;::io--o"'o "_.OOC>Ot,.OO~·••o• APPELLANT Versus GIDION M\HTA fil.SPONDENT .~UDG1M1NT •. The respondent was ·tL0· plaintiff in t re Resident Magistrate's Court at Musoma. He sued the appellant for what appeqrs to be false imfrison- ment. It was agreed that both parties have hotel business at Buhemba village. AppelL,nt' s hotel is called Stella Eotel (Stella is the name cf his wife). This despL1.tc arose out of PUJl.chase of sugar from the R. T. ( Musoma. On 26/8/83 the respondent came down to buy sugar for his hotel. The R.T.C. sold one bag of sugar to each hot~l on production of the li- cence. On that flay the respondent bought his share of the sugar and was issued a Cash Sale Receipt. The cash receipt was issued to two buye1 joinhy 9 Gidion :,Iwita (respondent) and Stella Hotel (appellant). So two bags were bought on th;:-1t rc~.ceipt. It happenvd that the appellant had never gone to buy sugar nor did he send any body to buy. (,Jorse still that i.ag never rc3ched him. Ee therefore• felt that the respondent haJ. it~len his share, He reported to lolice St3tion Buhemba and complaiAed against the respondent. The Police arrested the respondent and detained him. They also seized one bag of sugar. Later they 'released him 's.nd returned the bag of sugar to him. In turn he filed this suit clai:;;ing S hs. 20, 000/- dam::iges for false imprisonment. In his defence -the 8Pf,e- llant argued that he was ju_sti±'ied in reporting the respondent to 1 olice becallse he took his share of sugar and refused to give it to him. The trial magistratr found t'.le respondent had established his case and gave judgment for him. Bllt he reduced the quantum frnm 20,000/- to 12tSJ0/-. The appellant brought this appeal. He still insists that the resi:,ondent had swindled him his share of sugar so he had the reason to report to Police. On~ of the ingredients of these kind of cases is that the defendan~ must have reported the plaintiff to police through malice and had no prr:-- bable or reasonable causeo In this casr it was clearly established the bought sugar on behalf of the appellant's hot&l. The appellant had neve:· Sent him to buy the sugar nor ciid the sugar reach him (appellanti. Any reasonable person would h2ve held the respondent responsible for such misdeeds. The nppellant therefore had 3 probable cause for reportin~ t: 2 the police. The mere fact that the folice investigations later revealed the respondent also was d~ceived by another person called Magera Is~ya did not afffct tho appeliant's ~~~s~: .. ' He had jus1ifiqation and no molice wash proved 1gain,-;t him. I, al;I.ow the-"appe~l wi-t'h'costs. The decisj_on of the trial cotJ.::.·t is set aside and is sl!lbstituted thereof the order that the_ respon<:lent'~ claim be dismissed with costs" ' . MUSOMA. 13/11/85 . . r • . . r.J