mrs fakharia shamji vs registered trustees of the khoja shia ithnasheri mza jamaat 2022 tzhc 14997 6 december 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA IN THE SUB-REGISTRY OF MWANZA AT MWANZA CIVIL CASE NO. 22 OF 2016 MRS. FAKHARIA SHAMJI............................................................... PLAINTIFF VERSUS THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE KHOJA SHIA ITHNASHERI (MZA) JAMAAT.............................................................................. DEFENDANT JUDGMENT 15th September & 6thDecember,2022 Kahyoza, J.: Mrs. Fakharia Shamji (Shamji) instituted a suit against the Registered Trustee of Khoja Shia Ithnasheri (MZA) Jamaat (the Trustees) claiming inter alia, for a declaration that the seizure and confiscation of her belongings plus cash money worth Tzs. 58,000,000/= were unlawful and unjustifiable acts, an order to compel the defendant to return all her belongings seized by the defendant plus the cash money taken during the illegal eviction, payment of special damages to the tune of Tzs. 350,000,000/=, arising from loss and damage caused by the defendant’s unlawful act and interest. 1 The Trustees filed the Written Statement of Defence (WSD), which this Court ruled out that the Trustees filed the WSD out of time, expunged it and granted Shamji leave to proceed ex parte. The cause of action in this case arose from the Trustees’ act of evicting Shamji following the Tribunal’s judgment and decree, which this Court quashed and set aside on appeal. Shamji pleaded that during her eviction, the defendant wrongly and wantonly seized her property including cash amounting to Tzs 58,000,000/= causing her untold losses and damage. She pleaded further that, the seized goods were not related to the disputed premises, including the Plaintiff’s apparels, home appliances for her and other members of residing therein. She also pleaded that she demanded return of her goods in vain. She narrated that she suffered following losses and damage- 1. loss of use of seized belongings; 2. losses and damage resulting from the Plaintiff’s failure to invest and utilize the demanded seized sum that is Tzs. 58,000,000/=, intended to be used by the plaintiff in its [her] business endeavours; 3. losses and damage suffered by the plaintiff in seeking third party financing in financing the Plaintiff’s business ventures, due to loss caused by the defendant; 4. losses and damage suffered by the plaintiff as a result of loss of business with its [her] associates on and outside Tanzania; and 2 5. general loss and damage suffered by the plaintiff as a result of defendant’s illegal acts. She claims compensation for losses and damage she suffered, and which she continued to suffer while the case was pending. The court and the plaintiff’s advocate agreed to the following issues- 1. whether there was confiscation of the plaintiff’s belongings by the defendant during eviction; 2. whether the said confiscation caused damage and loss to the plaintiff; and 3. To What reliefs are the parties entitled to. This case has a fetched history. It commenced in 2016, but the genesis of the parties’ legal squabbles started in 2014. In 2014, the Trustees sued Shamji before Mwanza District Land and Housing Tribunal claiming that she defaulted to pay rent and sublet the rented premises. The tribunal decided the case in favour of the Trustees, ordering the occupants of the rented premised to be evicted forthwith and payment rent areas from January to the date of the judgment, which was 5th September, 2014. Shamji appealed to the High Court and filed an application for stay. Before the application for stay was entertained, the Trustees evicted Shamji. The Court heard the appeal and found in favour of Shamji. It quashed and 3 set aside the judgment and decree of the district land and housing tribunal ( the tribunal). The undisputed facts are that Shamji was tenant occupying one of the Trustees’ residential houses. The Trustees sued Shamji, obtained a decree in their favour. After that they evicted Shamji. Shamji appealed. The High Court held that her eviction was unlawful and unjustified. It quashed and set aside the judgment and decree of the tribunal, respectively. To prove the disputed facts, the plaintiff assembled evidence of two witnesses to prove the claims. I wish to mention at this stage that Shamji appeared and prosecuted this case through Fayaz Shamji, her hold of powers of attorney. Fayaz Shamji (Pw1) deposed that he was Shamji’s son holding a power of attorney issued by Shamji. He deposed that Shamji was so sick that she can hardly walk. She underwent spinal surgery and kidney transfer procedures. He tendered a power of attorney as exh.P. 1. He also tendered medical bills to prove that her mother was sick, which the court admitted and marked as Exh.p.2. He averred that Shamji, her mother was the Trustees’ tenant from 2003 to 2007 occupying apartment No. 3B Nkono Street- Mwanza. After the expiry of the contract in 2007, parties verbally agreed to extend the contract 4 to December, 2013. On 8.1.2014 Shamji received a seven days’ notice demanding her to vacate the premises. Later, on 16.1.2014, Shamji received another seven days’ notice requiring her to vacate. This time the defendant informed her that she should vacate as rent had been raised from Tzs. 100,000/- to Tzs. 500,000/= monthly. Shamji did not heed to the notices. The Trustees instituted a suit before the tribunal. He tendered the judgment of the tribunal as exh. P.3. The tribunal decided in favour of the Trustees and ordered Shamji to vacate and pay rent arrears. Shamji appeared to this Court which quashed and set aside the judgment and decree, respectfully of the tribunal. Fayaz Shamji (Pw1) tendered the judgment of the High Court as exhibit P.4. Following the decision of the High Court, Shamji applied to be given possession of the house and for return of property confiscated during the eviction. The letter listed all items the Trustees confiscated. He tendered the letter as exh.P. 6, which listed down items confiscates by the court broker and given to the Trustees, as gym equipment, curtains, oven, 3 mattresses, 2 refrigerators, children’s bicycles, clothes, utensils and Tzs. 58,000,000/= cash money. In his actual words, Fayaz Shamji (Pw1) deposed that “kulikuwepo na cash 5 58,000,000/= kwenye hiyo nyumba”. Meaning there was 58,000,000/= money on that house. He went on that, the Trustees wrote them a letter to collect their belongings and that should they default to collect them, they (Trustees) will impose storage charges of Tzs. 10,000/= per day. Fayaz Shamji (Pw1) tendered a letter dated 28.9.2014 from the Trustees as exhibit P. 7. He added that before the Trustee wrote the letter, exhibit P. 7, her mother had through Abbas Shamji wrote a letter to the tribunal requesting for her confiscated goods. He contended that the Trustees did not return their belongings to date so they decided to sue. Fayaz Shamji (Pw1) deposed they suffered massively as their items were scattered in the mosque, including underclothing exposed. He added that people saw the exposed underclothing. They lost Tzs. 58,000,000/=. Shamji, the plaintiff suffered mentally (psychologically) and physically. He testified that the eviction and exposure of clothes, including underwear caused her spinal problems. She is bedridden and in agony. He added that they wrote a letter listing items confiscated and demanded their return. The Trustees without challenging the list, wrote them a letter to collect the items. 6 Fayaz Shamji (Pw1) prayed the Court to order the Trustees, the defandants; one, to return confiscated items, which were clothing, Tzs. 58,000,000/= and other items he mentioned while testifying; two, pay general damages for humiliating Shamji and causing her stress which resulted to spinal medical problems; and three, return of items or value of confiscated items. The plaintiff’s second witness was Abbas A. Shamji (Pw2). Abbas A. Shamji (Pw2) is Shamji’s son. He was living with Shamji. On the date of eviction that is on 17.9.2014 he went from his daily chores and found a guard. The guard prohibited him to enter their house. As it was approaching prayer time, he went to mosque as they lived close to the mosque. He found items belonging to his mother, his wife, his children and himself scattered. On 19.9.2014 he wrote a letter to the tribunal requesting for the return of the confiscate items. Abbas A. Shamji (Pw2) tendered a copy of the letter dated 19.9.2014 as exhibit P.8. Abbas A. Shamji (Pw2) deposed that he received the seized Tzs. 58,000,000/= from a Company employing or he was working for, to buy crops. He tendered a cash voucher as exh.P.9. He added that on 24.9.2014 Shamji received a letter from the Trustees, the defendant, inviting them to 7 collect confiscated items. They went to the defendant who did not give them their belongings. He confirmed that her mother was shocked due to her clothes being scatted around the mosque and that she was humiliated and fell sick to date. After the closure of the plaintiff’s case, Mr. Mayenga, the plaintiff’s advocate filed final written submission, which I refer to while answering issues. It is trite law and indeed elementary that in civil cases, he who alleges has a burden of proof as per section 110 of the Evidence Act, [Cap.6 R.E. 2022] and it is until the person alleging has proved his allegation to the required standard the opponent party is called upon to proof. Being the law of evidence, it applies in even when a party proves his case ex parte. I wish to refer to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Lawrence Magesa T/A Jopen Pharmacy V. Fatuma Omary & Rimina Auction Mart & Company Limited, Civil Appeal No. 333/2019 regarding the burden of proof in civil cases that- “It is trite law and indeed elementary that he who aleges has a burden of proof as per section 110 of the Evidence Act. It is equaly elementary that the burden of proof never shifts to the adverse party until the party on whom the onus lies discharges his and the said burden is not diluted on account of the weakness of the opposite 8 party's case. A commentary by the learned authors M.C. Sarkar, S.C. Sarkar and P.C. Sarkar in Sarkar's Law of Evidence, 18th Edition 2014 at page 1896 published by Lexis Nexis, persuasively, discussing a section of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which is similar to ours stated that: "...the burden of proving a fact rest on the party who substantialy asserts the affirmative of the issue and not upon the party who denies it; for negative is usualy incapable of proof. It is ancient rule founded on consideration ofgood sense and should not be departed from without strong reason...Until such burden is discharged the other party is not required to be called upon to prove his case. The Court has to examine as to whether the person upon whom the burden lies has been able to discharge his burden. Until he arrives at such a conclusion, he cannot proceed on the basis of weakness of the other party...” The task of this court is to find out if Shamji proved the claims. There are facts which are settled do not need proof. I find it settled that Shamji was the Trustees’ tenant until 17.9.2014 when the Trustees evicted her. The Trustees evicted Shamji following the tribunal’s judgment and decree, which this Court quashed and set aside respectful. The Court found that the Trustees, the landlord, had no reason to evict Shamji. It declared Shamji a lawful tenant. The dispute is whether the unjustified eviction caused the alleged losses and damage to Shamji and determine the question what items the Trustees confiscated from Shamji. 9 Were the plaintiff’s items confiscated? Shamji alleged in the Plaint and tendered evidence that the Trustees evicted her and confiscated her properties. There is no dispute that the Trustees evicted Shamji with no justification. There is also no dispute or if there dispute as to whether the Trustees confiscated Shamji’s items, I find strong evidence proving that during the eviction, the Trustees removed items belonging to Shamji. There is evidence from Fayaz Shamji (Pw1) and Abbas A. Shamji (Pw2) that Shamji, their mother was evicted and her property taken by the Trustees. It is also in the decision of this Court involving the parties, that is of Mrs. Fakharia Shamji v. The Registered Trustees of the Khoja Shia Ithnasheri (Mza) Jamaat, Land Appeal No. 74/2014 HC MZ. (unreported) that the Trustees evicted Shamji. Fayaz Shamji (Pw1) and Abbas A. Shamji (Pw2) gave further evidence that Trustees wrote a letter to their mother to collected items they removed from the house during the eviction and that they will impose storage charges of Tzs. 10,000/= daily, if she default to collect them. Fayaz Shamji (Pw1) tendered the letter from the Trustees inviting Shamji to pick her items as Exh P.7. This evidence proves to the required standards that 10 the Trustees evicted Shamji and impounded her property. The challenging issue is what items did the Trustees impound when they evicted Shamji. Fayaz Shamji (Pw1) and Abbas A. Shamji (Pw2) deposed that the Trustees confiscated listed in a letter exhibit Exh.P. 6. Fayaz Shamji (Pw1) while testifying listed down items confiscates as gym equipment, curtains, oven, 3 mattresses, 2 refrigerators, children’s bicycles, clothes, utensils and Tzs. 58,000,000/= cash money. Abbas A. Shamji (Pw2) supported his brother evidence that the Trustees confiscated items belonging to his mother, to his wife, to his children and himself. He added that he found them scattered in the mosque. Abbas A. Shamji (Pw2) was living with Shamji at the time of eviction. He did not specify items the Trustees confiscated. He deposed that he wrote a letter on the 19.9.2014 listing down items confiscated and demanded their return. I find ample evidence that the Trustees evicted Shamji and impounded as Fayaz Shamji (Pw1) and Abbas A. Shamji (Pw2) deposed, household items such as clothes, utensils, curtains, oven, 3 mattresses, 2 refrigerators, children’s bicycles, and utensils. Shamji proved on the balance of preponderance and bearing in mind the fact that she used the premises for residence, that the Trustees impounded clothes, utensils, curtains, oven, 3 11 mattresses, 2 refrigerators, children’s bicycles, and utensils belonging to her and her relatives. As to the gym equipment, I was not satisfied by the mere mention that the Trustees confiscated them. There was no evidence showing who was using gym equipment and what type of gym equipment. I am unable to hold that among the items confiscated were the gym equipment. That done, I now consider whether the Trustees confiscated Shamji’s Tzs. 58,000,000/=. Shamji pleaded in the Plaint that that during eviction, the defendant wrongly and wantonly seized her property including cash amounting to Tzs 58,000,000/= causing her untold losses and damage. Fayaz Shamji (Pw1), the holder of power of attorney of Shamji, deposed that among impounded items was cash Tzs. 58,000,000/=. He did not testify whose money was. He deposed that “kulikuwepo na cash 58,000,000/= kwenye hiyo nyumba”. Meaning there was 58,000,000/= money in that house. Fayaz Shamji (Pw1), being the person holding Shamji’s powers of attorney did not elucidate how Tzs. 58,000,000/= found its way in the house. He did not explain show how Shamji intended to deal with that amount of money. Briefly, Fayaz Shamji (Pw1)’s evidence was short of establishing the allegation in the Plaint that the Trustees confiscated Tzs. 58,000,000/= 12 belonging to Shamji. Thus, Fayaz Shamji (Pw1), did not convince me that Tzs. 58,000,000/= was in the house and it was part of the items belonging to Shamji the Trustees confiscated. I also considered Abbas A. Shamji (Pw2)’s evidence to see if he proved that together with other items, the Trustees confiscate Tzs. 58,000,000/= during the unlawful eviction. Contrary to what Shamji pleaded in the Plaint, Abbas A. Shamji (Pw2) deposed that Tzs. 58,000,000/= the Trustees confiscated belonged to a Company. The Company entrusted him that amount of money to buy crops. He tendered a cash voucher, exhibit P.9 as evidence that the amount belonged to his employer and that his employer gave that amount of money to buy crops. The voucher, Exh. P. 9 reads “cash handover to Abbas Shamji with regard to advance payment towards purchase of crops”. The voucher indicates that it was Mohamed Enterprises (T) Ltd, which Tzs. 58,000,000/= to Abbas (Pw2) on 15.9.2014. Abbas A. Shamji (Pw2) kept that amount at his home place until 17.9.2014 when the Trustees confiscated it during eviction. Abbas A. Shamji (Pw2)’s evidence is too sweet to be true: One, Abbas A. Shamji (Pw2) did not tender evidence that he was an employee of Mohamed Enterprises (T) Ltd or even mention the type of crops he was 13 employed or engaged to purchase; Two, He did not explain how he was doing that business. To convince this court, Abbas A. Shamji (Pw2) ought to have explain how was he buying crops, storing them, and transporting them to his employer; Three, to make things worse, exhibit P.9, the payment voucher was not annexed to the plaint nor pleaded anywhere in the Plaint. I am of the view that it was manufactured to support the allegation that among the items the Trustees confiscated was Tzs. 58,000,000/=. To say the least, I was not impressed by Abbas A. Shamji (Pw2)’s evidence that the Trustees confiscated Tzs. 58,000,000/= In addition, it is trite law that parties are bound by their pleadings and the court is bound to determine issues raised by pleadings. The decision in Captain Harry Gandy Vs Gasper Air Chattles Ltd, (1965) E.A.C.A. 139, James Franck Gwagilo Vs Attorney General [2021] TLR 455 and Galaxy Paints Company Ltd V. Fakon Guards Ltd, (2000) E. A 385. In Captain Harry Gandy the Court of Appeal held that;- “The object of the pleadings is of course, to secure that both parties shal know what are the points in issue between them so that each may have ful information of the case he has to meet and prepare his defence to support his own case or to meet that of the opponent.” 14 Shamji pleaded under paragraphs 9 and 12 that the amount of Tzs. 58,000,000/= which the Trustees confiscated belonged to her and that she suffered loss as she could not invest it. Abbas A. Shamji (Pw2)’s evidence depicted that the amount belonged to Mohamend Enterprise (T) Ltd which was entrusted to him to purchase crops. What an incongruity between the pleadings and the evidence. Since, pleadings bind parties and the Court, I find Abbas A. Shamji (Pw2)’s evidence of no effect. For the sake of hammering home the discrepancies between the pleadings and the evidence let me reproduce paragraphs 9 and 12 of the Plaint. They read- 9. That due to the ilegal eviction, the Defendant on the 17th September, 2014 seized a number of the Plaintiff’s properties including money worth Tzs. 58,000,000/= wrongfully and wantonly and therefore causing untold losses and damages to the Plaintiff. Various correspondences being an admission from the Defendant of her wrongful seizure are attached and marked SHAMJI-3 and the leave of this Court is craved for the same to form part of this Plaint. 12. The act by the Defendant has caused great loss and damages to the Plaintiff as herein below particularized. a. loss of use of seized belongings; b. losses and damage resulting from the Plaintiff’s failure to invest and utilize the demanded seized sum that is 15 Tzs. 58,000,000/=, intended to be used by the plaintiff in its [her] business endeavours; c. losses and damage suffered by the plaintiff in seeking third party financing in financing the Plaintiff’s business ventures, due to loss caused by the defendant; d. losses and damage suffered by the plaintiff as a result of loss of business with its [her] associates on and outside Tanzania; and e. general loss and damage suffered by the plaintiff as a result of defendant’s ilegal acts. (Emphasis supplied. In the end, I find that the Trustees unlawful confiscated clothes, utensils, curtains, oven, 3 mattresses, 2 refrigerators, children’s bicycles, and utensils. For reasons demonstrated above, I strongly find that there is no evidence that the Trustees impounded Tzs. 58,000,000/= from Shamji’s house as alleged. It is an established principle of law that, before calling upon the defendant to refute allegations, the plaintiff ought to have discharged her duty to prove the allegations on the balance of preponderance. Shamji, the plaintiff, did not prove the allegation that there was Tzs. 58,000,000/= in the house, which the Trustees, the defendant, impounded. It is trite law that judgment of court must be grounded on the evidence properly adduced during trial otherwise it is not a decision at all. (See Shemsa Khalifa and Two Others vs. Suleiman Hamed, Civil 16 Appeal No. 82/2012). There is no evidence that there was Tzs. 58,000,000/= and the same was confiscated. Did confiscation cause damage and loss to the plaintiff? It has been proved that the Trustees unlawful confiscated clothes, utensils, curtains, oven, 3 mattresses, 2 refrigerators, children’s bicycles, and utensils. Shamji pleaded that the Trustees act of confiscating her property caused her untold losses and damage. She mentioned the following to be the losses and damage she suffered- a. loss of use of seized belongings; b. losses and damage resulting from the Plaintiff’s failure to invest and utilize the demanded seized sum that is Tzs. 58,000,000/=, intended to be used by the plaintiff in its [her] business endeavours; c. losses and damage suffered by the plaintiff in seeking third party financing in financing the Plaintiff’s business ventures, due to loss caused by the defendant; d. losses and damage suffered by the plaintiff as a result of loss of business with its [her] associates on and outside Tanzania; and e. general loss and damage suffered by the plaintiff as a result of defendant’s ilegal acts. (Emphasis supplied. Fayaz Shamji (Pw1) and Abbas A. Shamji (Pw2) deposed that Shamji suffered from humiliation because of the eviction, impounding her 17 belongings and exposing her clothing including underclothes in the mosque. They testified that their mother’s clothes were exposed and scattered around the mosque for everyone to see. Fayaz Shamji (Pw1) and Abbas A. Shamji (Pw2) added that the unlawful eviction, confiscation of Shamji’s property and exposure her clothes including underclothes led her to suffer psychologically and physically. In addition, they testified that she sustained spinal disorder which led her to be treated in India. Fayaz Shamji (Pw1) tendered medical bills to prove that Shamji sustained spinal disorder and had to visit India for treatment. I considered the undisputed facts, the evidence and I find it proved that the Trustees’ act of impounding Shamji’s property forced her to suffer from loss of use of the impounded property. This is obvious if you impound someone’s property you certainly deny that person use of the property. I have just held that Shamji’s did not prove claim that the Trustees impounded her Tzs. 58,000,000/= during eviction, consequently, she did not prove claims emanation or connected to the claim. In short, she did not prove claim for­ a. losses and damage resulting from the Plaintiff’s failure to invest and utilize the demanded seized sum that is Tzs. 58,000,000/=, intended to be used by the plaintiff in its [her] business endeavours; 18 b. losses and damage suffered by the plaintiff in seeking third party financing in financing the Plaintiff’s business ventures, due to loss caused by the defendant; and c. losses and damage suffered by the plaintiff as a result of loss of business with its [her] associates on and outside Tanzania. I accordingly dismiss the allegation that the Trustees impounded Tzs. 58,000,000/= all claims connected with that claim. Lastly, I considered the allegation that Shamji suffered from spinal disorder because of the unlawful eviction, confiscation of her properties and exposure her clothes including underclothes in the mosque. Even though both, Fayaz Shamji (Pw1) and Abbas A. Shamji (Pw2), gave evidence that Shamji suffered spinal disorder as result of stress occasioned by the unlawful eviction, I am not able to buy the evidence. It is on record that Shamji was suffering and attending clinic in India even before her eviction. Exhibit P. 4, the judgment of this Court and in land appeal involving the parties, the Court observed at page 15 that- “In my considered opinion, it was unreasonable for the Landlord, the suit premises having been occupied by the son of the appellant while the appellant was away in India for treatment, to issue notice for termination of the contract on the ground that section 2 of the Lease Agreement had been breached. 19 As such the notice of [de]termination of the contract dated 16th January, 2014 was therefore ineffective.” Shamji had a duty to prove what was she suffering from before the unlawful eviction that forced her to go for treatment India and prove that after the eviction she suffered from spinal disorder. She was also duty bound to establish that the spinal disorder was not related to the decease she was suffering from before eviction. There is no such evidence. In the absence of the evidence as pointed out, I find that Shamji did not prove that the unlawful eviction led to spinal disorder. I dismiss the claims. Further still, Shamji did not plead in her Plaint that she suffered from stress causing spinal disorder which forced to incur medical bills as indicated by exhibit P.2. It common knowledge that evidence are tendered to support allegations in the pleadings and to establish facts not pleaded. Lastly, Shamji claimed to suffer from humiliation for unlawful eviction and confiscation of her properties and exposure her clothes including underclothes in the mosque. I have no doubt that the unlawful eviction and confiscation led to Shamji’s humiliation and torture. To what reliefs are parties entitled to? Shamji prayed for specific damages and general damages. There is no evidence to prove that Shamji suffered any specific damage. It is trite law 20 that specific damages must be specifically pleaded and proved. I dismiss the claim for specific damages. General damages, as defined the Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Edition) are “damages that the law presumes folow from the type of wrong complained of General damages do not need to be specifically claimed” The Court of Appeal in Dr. Ally Shabhay v. Tanga Bohara Jamat, Civil Appeal No.40 of 1997 (unreported) further defined general damages as- “These are damages arising naturaly, that is, in the normal course of things. They are such damages as the law wil presume to be the direct or probable consequence of the action complained of”. In the present case, my task is consider what damages are considered arising naturally or probable consequence of the action complained of. Shamji complained and proved that she suffered loss of use of seized belongings and general loss and damage because of the Trustees’ (the defendant’s) illegal eviction and impounding of her belongings. Indeed, the Trustees wrongly and without justification evicted Shamji and confiscated her belongings. Her belongings here, exclude Tzs. 58,000,000/=, which I found no proof that that amount was in the house and that the Trustees confiscated it. Shamji did not prove the value of the items the Trustees confiscated. For reason, I cannot grant specific claims or the value of the 21 confiscated items. In the circumstances and evidence of this case, I find general damages to be sufficient. I grant general damages of Tzs. 30,000,000/= as compensation for items confiscated. Shamji proved also that she was denied use of the items confiscated and unlawful evicted. Indisputably, Shamji suffered from illegal or unjustified eviction. This Court (Makaramba, J.) noted in the judgment of Mrs. Fakharia Shamji v. The Registered Trustees of the Khoja Shia Ithnasheri (Mza) Jamaat, (supra) that “the eviction order of the tribunal and its enforcement by the court broker were made on the same day, that is on the 17th September, 2014. This I must say was quite a super speed in administration of justice.” Thus, Shamji was not given a notice of the intention to evict her and her family and require her to vacate before forceful eviction. She was entitled to the notice under the law. I grant her the general damages of Tzs. 80,000,000/= for illegal and unjustified eviction. The Trustees and her agent, the court broker harassed Shamji for no reason. They ought to have complied with the procedural rules guiding execution of court or tribunal order. Why were the Trustees and her agent in such hurry? It is unwelcome behavior, which must be condemned. Property owners, tenants and court broker are all bound and protected by 22 law. I totally concur with Shamji’s advocate submission by reproducing the decision of the Court of Appeal in Geita Mining Limited vs. Twalib Ismail Assenga, Civil Appeal No.6 of 2017 (unreported). In that case, the Court of Appeal observed- “It is truism that, trespass is a tort of interference to possession that is why a tenant may sue his landlord for trespass if he encroaches upon his lawfully possession.” The Trustees and their agent, the court broker, trespassed to Shamji. They may pay for the trespass. They had no right to evict Shamji without giving her a notice of intention to evict her forcefully if she did not vacate before the expiry of 14 days. In the end, I grant general damages of Tzs. 120,000,000/= in total to Shamji with costs and court interest at 7% p.a from the date of decree until full payment, unless, the delay is caused by Shamji. I order accordingly. Dated this 6th day of December, 2022. J.R. Kahyoza JUDGE 23 Court: Judgment delivered in the virtual presence of Mr. Adam M. Murusuli, the defendants advocate, and Mr. Fayaz, the plaintiff's holder of powers of Attorney, who muted. B/C Ms. Jackline (RMA) present. J.R. Kahyoza JUDGE 6 /12/2022 24