20150121 TZHC Bukoba

I• 1,,/ t,.-{l1) fvl f Af!,Af'lFs1 - {!Uf) - Ill: IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA ATBUKOBA CIVIL CASE NO. 5 OF 2009 1. RODOVICK KATUNZI } 2. EDWARD BENARD ......................................... PLAINTIFFS I VERSUS 1. THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS 2. R.P.C. KAGERA REGION ... :............. DEFENDANTS 3. THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL . 10.12.2014 AND 21.01.2015 'JUDGMENT . MJEMMAS, J. ln a plaint dated 31 st March 2009 and filed in this court on .1th May, 2009 the plaintiffs Rodovick · Katunzi and Edward Benard are $.e~king ' . ., judgment and decree again~_t the defendants, the Minister in charge of ·. : "I;• Home Affairs, the RPC for Kagera Region an~ the Honourable Attor_ney General. The Plaintiffs' allegations in their plaint are. that on 29th June, ~ . 2008 at Mtukula Centre_ within Misenyi District in Kagera Region the 1 I defendants jointly illegally seized 32 tons of rice and 20 tons of groundnuts equal to 320 bags of rice·_~nd 200 bags of groundn_uts the property of the plaintiffs. The reasons for such seizure was that the plaintiffs were illegally. exporting the ~aid grains to Uganda contrary to the Export Control Act~ [Cap 381 R.E. 2002]. Thereafter the plaintiffs were arrested, charged and prosecuted before the District Court of Bukoba in Criminal Case no. 70 of•:· i 2008. · " On their own plea of guilty the plaintiffs were convicted and ... condemned to pay fine of Tsh.100,000/= eacl1': · In addition, the seized goods were confiscated .and ordered to be disposed by way of public . auction and the proceeds handed over to the Government of Tanzania. Before the completion of the auction the proceedings and conviction of the District Court were successfully challenged in the High Court of Tanzania at Bukoba in Criminal Revision no. 2 of 2008. The High Court quashed the· . ' order of sale of the goods by public auction. It also ordered the sale proceeds to be returned to the plaintiffs and tl:le fines to be refunded to. them. 2 ...~o!"(<i". ~ ~. I '•' ·.of;: ,, .:· '~ . ~ ·-~-~""~".,.., ·1_,.,. . . . ,,: . ' • 1 - . "- ,l ~l f l~ff . Based on this brief history therefore, of the 320 bags of rice and l I . }" I I. l · 200 bags of groundnuts only 150 bags of rite were handed over to the I plaintiffs and 143 bags 9f rice which had' already been disposed their proceeds worth Tsh.3,604,000/= were equally handed over to the ,'. plaintiffs. Whereas all 200 bags of groundnuts were returned 27 bags of rice were missing. :i .. i i : Based on the above brief history, the plaintiffs pray for judgment and decree against all the defendants as follows:- . (i) Payment of Tsh.2,700,000/= being the value of 27 ' i . missing bags of rice·. · (ii) Payment of Tshs.10,696~000/= being the difference in value between the public auction sale and the expected market price. ,• (iii) Payment of Tshs.2Q,OOO,OOO/= being 'the additional motor vehicle hire charges for the impounded motor vehicles. , (iv) Payment of Tshs.300,000,000/= as general damages 3 I' t ' ' suffered due to prosecution and detention. (v) Costs of the suit. (vi) Any other reliefs the honourabel c;ourt may deem just. The defendants have filed joint written statement of defence dated lih July, 2009 and filed in this court on 20th July, 2009 disputing· ·the plaintiffs' claim. On July, 31 st 2013 the following issues were framed after consultation with the learned advocate .for the plaintiffs as well as the learned St?te Attorney for the defendants who were Mr. Kabunga for the plaintiffs- ancl. · Mr. Makanja for the defendants:- 1. Whether or not the plaintiffs' goods were legally seized and impounded by the defendants. 2. Whether or not twenty seven bags of rice which were not auctioned by the defendants were hqnded over to the plaintiffs. 3. Whether or not the impounding of the motor vehicles carrying ... ,.,:,,, the plaintiffs' goods was lawful. 4 -. lI t -I l ?' 4. · Whether or not the seized goods subject of the alleged exportation abroad were restricted goods. 5. Whether or not the arrest, dentention arid prosecutior-1 of. · ·the plaintiffs by the defe.ndants in relatioh to the seized goods was lawful. 6. Whether or not the plaintiffs suffered damages and if so to what tune. 7. What reliefs are the parties entitled to. On 25.09.2014 trial of the case commenced. PW1 tudovick Katunzi introduced himself as a resid~nt of Kashai Halisi ·within Bukoba Municipality and that he is a businessman dea_ling with purchasing and selling grains to wjt rice, maize, groundnuts, sorghum etc. According to him he began this business from 2000 up to 2013. He testified that on 29~6.2008 he was ' coming from Kahama to Mutukula within Misenyi District in Kagera Region. ' ~ ' PW1 stated that he had two lorries with registration nos. T 307 AAR and its trailer T. 802 ADM and the other one with regi?tration no. 445 AFK which was with his colleague one Edward Kaiza (PW~). ,, 5 ).l j • ,j The two lorries (vehicles) were loaded with 26 tons of rice and groundnuts I ! and the other vehicle T 445 AFK Semi trailer had 26. tons of groundnuts and rice respectively. The total was 52 tons equal to 320 bags of rice and 200 bags of groundnuts as the joint property of both RWl and PW2. PW~ ... went on to state that before they reached Mutukula they were stopped by the Police at Nsunga village-who asked ·where they were going and what . . ~, ; . was in the vehicles. PWl told the police that they were going to Mutukula and that inside the vehicles there were groundnuts and some rice. They were ordered.to go to Kyaka Police Station. At the Police Station PWl and PW2 were told that they were not allowed to· go to Mtukula with such . grains (rice & groundnutsj though they explained to the police that they · · ; were businessmen licenced to purchase and sell various crops in the Lake Zone. The police insisted that, that was not allowed so they were ordered to drive back to Bukoba Police Station and put in lockup. PWl further testified that the following day they were taken out of the lockup and their statements recorded. They also handed over their certified copies of business licences and were returned to the lockup. PWl 6 - ' j :,' / I • I · .again stated that on 3.7.2008 they were charged, before the Resident / .~agistrate Court of Bukoba for unlawful exportation of rice and groundnuts · .. out of the country. They were convicted on their own plea of guilty and · . ordered to pay fine Tshs.100,000/= each. The court further ordered .' ,· ·forfeiture of the goods and sell by public auction. PW1 proceeded to tell the court that they instructed their counsel Mr. Kabunga who filed Criminal Revision case no. 2 of 2008 to the High Court at Bukoba which court . ordered refund of the fines they had been condemned by the District: Court . and return of all the forfeited rice and groundnuts and quashed the proceedings and orders before the District Court. After· the ruling of the High Court the plaintiffs were given back 200 bags (20 tons) of . groundnuts, and 150 bags (lS tons) of rice after the court broker had been · ·or~ered to release the seized goods. PW1 narrated that 200 bags were the ·same as the forfeited ones but for rice it was not the same. He testified that. 320 bags had been forfeited but only JS0 bags were given back to .. them while 143 bags had already been sold: so they were given the sale proceeds to the tune of Tshs.3,604,000/= by cheque drawn on their favour 1i by Mr. Maziku the Court Broker (DW1). PWl's Counsel wrote to the 7 Attorney General claiming the remaining 27 bags of rice that proved futile: .. ; . . . After that they decided to file a suit to claim their right before this court. According to PW1 they expected to sell at Tshs.1000/_= per kilogram so 143 bags sold by the Court broker would fetch Tshs. 14,300,000/= so they are claiming Tshs.10,694,000/= as difference in price, Tshs.2,700,000f== as the sale for 27 bags, Tshs.2Q,000,000/= as motor vehicle hire charges for ., ·•· 17 days for which the vehicles were held by .• the Police and . Tshs.300,000,000/= as compensation/general damages for loss of ~ reputation and disturbance. On cross-examination by Mr. Mwakahesya, learned State Attorney, ·. PWl insisted that he (PW2) had hired the impounded vehicles for 3 days · only while the same remained in Police custody for 17 days more. He· · however, admitted that he had no written rnotor vehi~le hiring agreement nor did he produce any ,.receipt t.o prove the same. As for the loss of reputation he stated that his arrest had been broadcast on ITV and Tse· .. · . . television channels . thus his name and that of PW2 were blackened in the . society as a result of the said. incident. ThatmaJkedthe end of PWl's ' : 8 •c ;•c~,~~f _. ~j~o,-.:>:-"¥_#-}fy!ffr~ • c. ;·, - _; :i -- I • j -J =;! .,·testmony . .. ' . The second witness was Edward Benard Kaiza (P.W2). He introduced .. · .hi_mself as a businessman resident of Kashai Kilimahewa and that he deals · in purchasing and s~lling crops to wit rice, maize, groundnuts etc in the Lake ·Zone. He stated that.he began his business in . -2004 and that he conducts such business with PWl. He recalled that on · 29/6/2009 he was together With his co-businessman PW2 travelling from · · ·Kahama to Mutukula when they were arrested and ordered to go back to : ii Bukoba Police Station and put in lockup for 3 days. PW2's evidence and ·. ··claims were basically identical to PW1's · save that he added that the .,\ ·, . . .. i'mpounded motor vehcles whrch carried the seized grains werre the · ·. property of one Nestory Kulindwa and Elhudi Lwamugila which they had hired for 3 days. He also fnsisted that on a·rrest he and PW1 had valid business licences allowing them to deal in grains business within the Lake Zone. PW2 tendered for identification his business licence No.B 01121755; On cross-examination by Mr. MwakahesyQ, learned State Attorney 9 PW2 admitted that they were charged with the offence of exporting grains / . unlawfully. When asked on the actual market price of rice during arrest,· he stated that the price expected was 1shs.1000/= per kilogram. That was · the end of PW2's testimony~ · The defendants called two witnesses to disprove the plaintiffs' suit/claims. The first witness was Mr. Wilbert Maziku (DWl). He stated that he was a Court Broker with 17 years experience and he works in th.at capacity through the guidance of court orders. He went on to state that he_ was appointed to execute the court order in Criminal case no. 70/2008 of · Bukoba Distrit Court whereby he was ordered to sell the forfeited rice a~d · groundnuts which order he executed on 8.7.2008 , by public auction at r'~~- his ...:. office at Migera street in Bukoba. He stated that he took 200 bags· of ri¢e ' . .. ~ from the Police. DWl. further. stated that he sold 143 bags of rice at Tshs.4,680,000/=. In the course of selling· he received a letter from ~he· · court ordering him to stop the auction. By that time there were 27 bags of rice remaining and that the same were given to PW2 Edward Benard. He stated that one Policeman who was keeping peace at· the auction ordered him to hand over the 27 bags of rice and the proceeds to PW2 after 10 . , . -~ .. ' - .... ~. ·- : ij . ·,. deducting his commission atid other expenses. He deducted Tshs.l,076,000/= and paid Tshs.3,604,000/= by cheque to PW2. 6 On cross-examination by Ms. Aneth learned counsel DW1 stated that ' he had no any written document to prove the handover to PW2 save that it ' . was done out of oral order from the Resident Magistrate Incharge. When . ' · asked the exact person to whom he gave the remaining-bags of rice he . stated that he could not remember but all what he remembered was that he gave 61 bags of rice to a certain Police Officer. That marked the end of DW1's testimony. Another witness was DW2 SSP Yusuph A. Mtatifikolo. He introduced himself as Officer Commanding District (OCD) ,for Misenyi District since 2008. He stated that on 29/6/2008 he arrested the plaintiffs at Mutukula · · · border post between Tanzania. and Uganda as they were about to illegally ' · export crops. According to DW2 he ordered the Police Officer who was at ,·the boarder to stop the vehicles loaded with crops. He mentioned the vehicles to be Scania make with registration no,, T. 304 AAL and a trailer ' · 11 with registration no. T. 802 ADM and a Benz with registration no. T. 445 / AFR. He .inspected them .and found out that they had carried rice the property of Ludovick Katunzi.(PW1) and Edward Banard (PW2). DW2 went. on to tell the court that on .20.6.2008 they were summoned at the District Commissioner's Office for· a mee~ing which was chaired by the Chairman of'· the District Defence and Security Committee (the District Commissioner) . .t, At that meeting the District Commissioner told them that exportation of crops had been prohibited from that date. _, DW2 stated further that by the time he arrested the plaintiffs' vehicles he found that they had ~arried rice and groundnuts without any permit contrary to the law and order. DW2 tendered as exhibit DE1, GN . NO. 137 OF 15.8.2008, the order issued by the. President of The United . Republic of Tanzania prohibiliting export_ation of certain crops. He stated ·. that after the arrest he ordered the vehicles to go to the RPC'S Office, of: ,, ' ' Bukoba Region and that he did not count the number of the bags that '· : . were inside the vehicles. A criminal case was filed to that effect and that he was not involved further in the case. , 12 . .. ·~. ·· ..... ,., ',. ~- ....... " On cross-examination by Ms. Aneth learned counsel DW2 insisted I · that he arrested PW1 and PW2 because th~y had violated the lawful order ~N no·. 137 of 15.8.2008 issued by the President of the United Republic of Tanzania which order prohibited exportation of crops outside Tanzania .. He admitted that groundnuts were. not mentioned in the order but stated that after he checked the first vehicl~ with rice he concluded that even the second vehice had carried· the same crops. As to whether. Mutukula is · outside Tanzania he admitted that it is still within Lake Zone. That was the end of the defendant'stestimony thus it marked the end of the trial. The first issue is whether or not the plaintiff's goods were legally . seized and impounded by the defendants. According to the evidence ~vailable on record it is true that the plaintiffs were convicted in Criminal .-' Case no. 70 of 2008 of Buko.ba District Court. It is further on record that the conviction and orders were declared void by the High Court at Bukoba _in Criminal Revision no. 2/2008. There is no further record that the ' '~ defendants appealed against t_he High Court decision so the decision stands · · binding until it is otherwise challenged by a higher court. To that effect , 13 ij .,· 1, ] therefore, it is in law taken that the defendants act to seize and if11pound ._ the motor vehicles carrying rice and grounduts the property of the plaintiffs · . . ... was illegal. Equally, ~he High Court decision in Criminal Revision• n~., 2/2008 that declared the seizure and impounding of the plaintiffs' cargoes t '.,. illegal and order to refund the fine paid must be taken to be conclusive evidence as to the innocence of the plaintiffs. I am alive to the provisions of Section 43A of the Evidence Act [Cap .. 6 R.E. 2002] which provides· thus:- "A final Judgment of a court in any criminal proceedings shall, after the expiry of the time limit · , ,., for an appeal against that Judgment or after the date of the decision of an appeal i(l those proceedings, I • . whichever is the later, be taken as conclusive evidence that the person convicted or ·acquitted was guilty or innocent of the offence to which -the Judgment relates. " I have already. stated that the defendants did oat appeal against the High Court decision in Criminal Revision no. 2 of 2008 which quashed conviction·: 14 9 •·qf the plaintiffs of the offence for exporting crops illegally. Therefore issue no. 1 is answered in the negative. / Issue no. 2 is whether or not twenty seyen bags of rice which were ' . not auctioned by the defendants were handed over to the plaintiffs. According to the testimony of PWl Ludovick Katunzi, 320 bags of rice and 200 bags of groundnuts were forfeited and ordered to be sold by DW1 the . . Court Broker. He further stated that after the High Court ruling in Criminal · ,, revision no. 2/2008 those bags were ordered to be handed over to the u ·. plaintiffs. However, he stated that only 150 bag.s of rice were returned to him by DW1 and the proceeds of 143 bags to the tune of Tshs.3,604,000/=. So neither 27 remaining bags of rice nor the proceeds there of were paid to him .. In his defence DW1, the Court Broker stated " . that he handed over the rest of the bags and the proceeds to PW2 - . . 6 Edward Benard but no written hand over withnessed the handover. At · least with the proceeds the cheque evidenced that and it was not'disputed .by the plaintiffs. DW1 later on changed his statement in that he gave the -~ . .?7 bags to the Police officer. However, he did not mention the name or 1S the number of the alleged Police officer. ·What appears to be confusih_g I I more is when DW1 stated-that the remainiflQ bags of rice were 61. The evidence of DW2 SSP Yusuph Mtatifikolo was not helpful on this issue' \' . because he stated that after he handed over the cargoes to the RPC _._-of '· Q Bukoba he was not further involved in the matter. Therefore, basing on the -. ! evidence available I am of the view that the plaintiffs have established their· " case on balance of probabilities . that 27 bags of rice were not handed over·: ,. to them (plaintiffs) as there is no proof to that effect. Thus the answer.to , issue number 2 is that the said 27 bags of rice were not handed over to. _ . the plaintiffs. It (issue) is answered in the negative. The third issue relates to whether or not the impounding of the motor vehicles carrying plaintiffs' goods was lawful. It is common unqer·· ' standing that the impounding of the motor vehicles was in the course to stop exporting the rice and groundnuts to Uganda illegally. According to - DW2 SSP Yusuph A. Mtatifikolo this was done following the meeting of the District Defence and Security Committee held OIJ 20.6.2008 by the District Commissioner who gave them verbal instrudiOQS or order which 16 prohibited exportation of crops outside Tanzania. According to his ·: evidence, later on the District: Commissioner gave them GN No. 137/2008 I 'Nhic~ prohibited exportation of some crops (grains). They were issued with the Order G.N. No. 137 of 2008 after the incident (arrest of the plaintiffs). I have looked at the said order and it is apparent that it was published on 15.8.2008 while the incident took place on 29.6.2008 i.e. a almost two months after the incident. In re-examination by Ms. Sinda, learned Senior State Attorney DW2 maintained that the said order is deemed to have come into force on 28.5.2008. · This issue should not · detain us because it was dealt with by the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 2/2008 and the defendants did not challenge. that decision up to the time they were sued in this ca~e. So I answer the 3rd issue in the negative. . t . . This takes care of issues numbe.r 4 and 5 because they are concerned with similar question i.e. the lawfulness . ' of the seizure . of goods, impounding of . the motor vehicles, detention and prosecution of the plaintiffs. I now return to issue '6 on whether or not t:he plaintiffs suffered damages and if so to what tune. It is not disputed that the two motor 17 l I I I ! . . vehicles with registration nos. T. 307 AAR and its trailer T. 802 ADM and T. 445 AFK. carrying 320 bags ·of rice and 200 bags of groundnuts were I impounded and the crops seized on 29.6.2008. It is also evidenced on record that the goods were not wholy returned to the plaintiffs and this resulted into filing this suit a9ainst the defendants .. Likewise, the evidence . · on record is to the effect that the defendants were and are still· the lawful owners of the above mentioned crops and that the same were business commodities. Neither the .evidence of DW1 nor of DW2 disputed th.is fact. Therefore, it is obvious that they have suffered damages due to the acts done by the defendants. The issue remains is to what tune. I am of the view that the-, 'j I <' ·:. tune will depend on the extent to what. ·each claim of the plaintiffs. is I> ,, ' proved or otherwise disproved by the defendants. ·This will be seen in due . course. Regarding the claim of Tsh.2,700,000/= as the price for the missing 27 bags of rice, that was not proved on balance' of probability. The plaintiffs alleged that they expected to sell eacl, bag at Tsh.100,000/ · yet 18 '••'•,::-'""t7·,,. :· '.'.'- ..·. ·.,c·,_,·· • ·''·J ;fl I there was no evidence as to the market price of the same at the time. It I · is tdte law that special damages must be specifically proved. See EUSTO I .K. NTAGALINDA VS. TANZANIA FISH PROCESSORS LTD, Civil " · Appeal no. 23 of 2010 {CA) Mwanza, Registry (unreported). ti · However, considering the amount realized by .;selling 143 bags of rice which is Tsh.4,680,000/= before Court Brokers commission deduction it means :one bag of rice was sold at Ts.32,727/=. Therefore the -27 missings bags . of rice would fetch Tsh.883,629/=. The plaintiffs are entitled to Tsh.883,629/=. As to prayer number two i.e. Tshs.10,696,000/= as difference in sale, again like in prayer number one there was no proof as to the price so .' -the prayer is denied. ,· . . On prayer number three i.e. Tshs.20,000,000/= as motor vehicle hire charges, there was no proof as to the ownership of motor vehicle and motor vehicles hire agreement. Apart from the fact that the alleged motor vehicles owner one Nestory Kulindwa did not .give evidence-to prove .. · \ 19 ownership of motor vehicle, exhibit KBS a demanding letter from the owner was written after the incident i.e. 20/7/2009 so it is doubtiful that there was any prior contract before the motor vehicles were allegedly hired to . ' . the plaintiffs. At least one would expect the plaintiffs to have produced the . registration card but that -was not done. However, since it is not disputed · that the impounded motor vehicles are for cargoes carrying, I think· Tshs.5,000,000/= is sufffcjent for damages suffered during the tim~ they were in Police custody. In respect with prayer number four on Tshs.3O0,000,000/= as general damages, it is trite law that general damages are not punitive as they seek to return the injured party to the original position. In other words general· damages are such as the law will presume to be· direct, .,,.. natural or probable consequence of the act complained of and aimed at restoring an injured party ·as far as possible to the posi~ion prior to. the .ij I ' injury [Refer to TANZANIA SARUJI CORPORTION VS AFRICAN MARBLE COMPANY [2004] TLR. It is again .the discretion of the court to award the same. To this end Tshs.50,000,000/= is hereby awarded a~ -. · 20 l - I. · · general damages to the plaintiffs. In the end result this court orders the_ following award to the plaintiffs: (i) Payment of Tshs.883,629/= as the, value for the missing 27 bags of rice. (ii) Payment of Tshs.5,000,000/= as the loss for the days the ' motor vehicles were prevented to work by the defendants. I • I • ,· (iii) Payment of Tshs.50,000,000/= . ' as g~neral damages. (iv) Costs to follow event. Before I conclude I would like to niake a comment regarding G.N. No. 137 of 15.8.2008. It was the evidence of DW2 that the said G.N. was ' . · the basis for arrest and prosecution of the plain~iffs. I have looked at it and asked myself the relevaqce of the said order (G.N.). In actual fact, it was published on 15.8.2008 while the alleged offence was committed on \ 1, -29.6.2008 i.e. two months before. It is sad .to ·note that after fifty three (53) years of independence vi~ich period our .country has been praised for 21 observance of The Rule of Law and Good Go_vernance . the defendants come . out with an order which has. resfrospective effect. One of the principles of the Rule of Law is that no person shall be charged with an offence which did not exist in law at the time it was committed. The said order (G.N.) is contrary to Article 13(6)(c) of the Constitution of the United Rep1ublic of Tanzania; 1977 which. prohibits . . retrosp~ctive ; application ! of laws. It is also contrary to Article 15(1) of the International Convenant on Civil and Politica_l Rights, 1966 and Article 11(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 to which Tanzania is a signatory. 1 Those institutions in charge of matters affecting human rights· should always ensure that they act within the ambit of the law, constitution ' ·and :· ' i ' •• international huma·n rights principles such as the ones I have cited above. To do otherwise as it wa.? done here is to put democracy and the Rule of Law in danger. Let's protect the good image of our country by observing . human rights . and the Rule of Law. . 9 ~ r1- . •,..--:. ' :·--;;~'".';'~1'l~T,;.;" ~r::ry :-:~'.: _- ~:jc~J-;''·,~:q , l 1 .• ,/ . • !I ' - i -I 21.01.201s Coram: G.J.K. Mjemmas, J. 1st Plaintiff: } Absent but repr. by Mr. Kabunga. ,2 nd Plaintiff: st · 1 Defendant: 2_· nd Defendant: rd l (Adv) for Ms Mrema (SSA) 3 Defendant: -- B/C: A. Kithama Court: This case was fixed for judgment on 05.02.2015 but I recalled it today in order to deliver the judgment. The main reason for giving the . ~ judgment earlier is that I have_ been transferred from this station so I find Jt important to clear my desk before I leave. Order: Judgment delivered this 21 st day of January, 2015 in the presence 6 · ,.. of'Mr. Kabunga, learned counsel for the plaintiffs and Ms. Mrema, learned ' ' ' ~ Senior State Attorney for the defendands. - I 23 IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA ATBUKOBA CIVIL CASE NO. 5 OF 2009 l l l 1. RODOVICK KATUNZI } i • I 2. EDWARD BENARD · ................. ~ ..................... .. PLAINTIFFS VERSUS -· 1. THE MINIST.ER OF HOME AFFAIRS 1·· 2. R.P.C. KAGERA REGION .................. DEFENDANTS·, 3. THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL DECREE WHEREAS the plaintiffs prayed for judgment and decree against the defendants as follows: (i) Pl3yment of the sum of Tsh.2,700,000/= the value of . 27 bags of rice which were not handed over to the· plaintiffs after the court order. (ii) Payment of the sum of Tsh.10,696,000/= being the difference in value for the illegally sold rice at the public auction. (iii) Payment of the sum of Tsh.20,000,000/= being additional . :.-, hire charges to the respective owners of the seized and impounded mo~or vehide. , (iv) Payment of the sum. of Tsh.300,000,000/= being compensation .- • for the general damages suffered due to prosecution, arrest and detention. ' . ,. (v) Costs of the suit. .· (vi) Any other and further relief as the honourable court may deem just \and fit to .meet the ends of. justice. / -' ..:- · . · This case coming up for final disposal on the 21 st day of January, I 2015 before G.J.K. Mjemmas, J, and in the presence of Mr. ·Kabunga, . . · learned counsel. for . the plaintiffs and Ms Mrema, learned Senior State A~orney for the defendants. . THE COURT DOTH ORDER THAT; The plaintiffs to be paid - (i) Tsh.883,629/= as the value of the_ missing 27 bags of rice. (ii) Tsh.5,000,000/== as the loss for the days the motor vehicles were prevented to work by the defendants. (iii) Tsh.50,000,000/= as general dama_ges. (iv) Costs of the suit. G,Jven under my hand and seal of this court this 21 st day of January, 2015. G.J.K. Mjemmas JUDGE Issued on ...................... :....... day of ......... ! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2015. " DISTRICT ReGISTRAR