2160531 TZHC Dar es Salaam 1

.. :-: :i'. :,"' ··1N THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA . ·. (DAR ES SALAAM DISTRICT ltEGISTRY} · . .AT DAR ES SALAAM .. CIVIL CASE NO. 45 OF 2010 TANZANIA FORESTRY RESEARCH . . INSTITUTE ■ a ■ ■■ ,r ■ ■ • • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ I' ■■~• ■■ 11 o ir: '!I.• 11 ■ a ■■■■■■-■.■.■■■■ P_LAINTIFf VERSUS NATIONAL MICROFINANCE BANK PUBLIC :••.· .-i "-!:-,; ' 1i" . .; . . . . lIMITED COMPANY ............. ·....•...... ·... ~: .. :.. ~ .... DEFENDANT 26/02&31/05/2016 ll!DGMENT The parties to. the suit are customer and banker respectivelyfoL a . , : :'•' ::.- ·:.:. - cons~derable period . _of.• time. Th~ plaintiff,which is a Government•-._,:::··= .: ':::':: institution,is headquartered in Morogoro where it opened several bank .... ·..... , . . : . .. . accounts with the defendant at one of its Branches known as Wami in th.at ... ": ···::: >:<.: . . . ~ . C ..: region. A dispute has arisen in relation to certain of the plaintiff's deb_it~·,, .. , •·1 •, . ' ·-. · · transactions. in its ~pecial Account which it (the plaintiff) alleges that ·R:-. ::, ·: did ·not authoris~. resu!tlng into. a loss of Tshs. 364,677;874/=. The ir,stant •:.-·· suit which .is founded on negligence s~eks to recover not only the said los.s :'·,'' ·: . .).. I. but also damages for breach of duty, interest and costs'.. 1 .' ,.,;~_, ·fhe "facts material··to the.'dispute a,~e ,as :follows:··-Sometime on-·27 · ·· ···· · ·. ·. January~- 2002,' the. plairitiff·dp~hed· ail~·Account'.-wlth the •Defendant's Wami. ..- ;·· ,- ;':•.:_ ,, ., brancfr-hi' •Morogc)ro sty-led';.-a-s:•TAF-ORl':special''AccounCNo/ 680104459:7·. ·_·: ·; ·. : , .. .-_ . _ The acc:ount' number was lateri,thanged.to SA 2212505652. That account: .... - ~-- ,:_: ·.: : yva~ in addition to_ qth~r ~~courits ·already i_n ex,i~tence specifically TAFQRI: .--· ··,. ;. :_.. _· • • ';. • •• · •· •• ,,•..: '-._ •••• ·-·--· ., i ' • ·-.. • • ._.. . GeneraL . .. ·Account . . . . No. . . :.?211~0000}0. '· . . .. . .•· -·' .. _,, . .. _Jq._ . ·- ·. . opera.tionalize . . ' .. ' . th·e. Account, the-_,_ :.· .. .):._.: .. -. . _, ~ " . ' . ' '. plaintiff . fulfilled . .. . ~ertain.. -.conditi.ons._notably . . . . . ' : :., .- ' . .. . filling in ·of: ·a . spe,ci.men. . .. . signature: ,. ·. ···:··_. . . ,; .; ·. . . ;' . . ~ , . card (exh. . P.1). . contai.11ing,...names ,, :_. and. .?Pe~im~n . . signatures . of officers:, .. · ·: . . ; ' :_' · autt)orised. to. sign docurn~nts .fpr ,the ,purpose _of withdrawals· from. the:_,.::;·· . . . . ' , .. ! . . ., , :, .. . • • . : '. .. : ' . . ~ • . •. • : . • . ' . . ' • . . .. . . . Account. These were· inJv.._ro . c_a.~egories namely; A .and B~In addition, .t_he··.·." · • • ._ • .• ' I • • •• • ~. • •• , • •, , ., ' • • • • •. ,~ • • • • ... .' Defendant· issued an· id.~ntity card : affix~d . with the Account signatories',.. . - . ·• • '. '. • • •. • ' •.• ·.,. ·, •• • . • • ' ••. _ .. , • ! · • . • • • • • • . ' • photos and signatures .: .Jn. ·. e~ich_tate.g9ry '• . (.exh. .. . ·- P2.). Ac:cordi_ng to exhibit . Pl,,:·;·:;- : ·- · ' . ' . any:\,vithdrawai. from. the. Aq:ou_nt would. b~ _honored by._ way of filling ,,a ._-,· ;:'.'< · :·- , . . . . ..-. . ' . .. : .. : ·. ... ·. ·.: .. : . ·- . ·., . . : .. ; :· } . --~-:. ., . . ·. ..: : . . ' . ' . -· . ,. : . ·.. _... withdrawal form. b·eQring'.pne, ~ignatwte:_from_ each. ,c9tegory., .It is common;.: . -'.'_, ... _.; ··_. · . . .. ... : . . . . . '. . . . . .. . . ·. ·. .. . . . . \~. ' .'. \ ; ~ ., ,. . . .. . ·, .. ' : ,· . . . . .. .' .. . . .. . . .. . . . ' .. . . .- . . .ground . . .. . . that the . .• acc,ount·\Af.a$ . _. z:r qt .all tn,qteri~I time$ operated_ sm'oothly _per-._ •:' I • • • .. •• ~ ' •• , • •. • •• ·•' • • ••: - :. • • • . -• : - • •• • • ; : •• ~ , • • • • • , • : -:: · .. ,_:. the instructions ¢onta1ned i~:;=exliibit Pt.·It. is. equally not in dispute that the,,· ,.. · ·-:,· :. . . ' . :- : .....'.· ::. ' .. . . _; . . . . ·. ~ ·: ' .: ·-_ '···: ~ . . : . ·. . ' . . . ' . ' . key person . . in the operatiQ.17 of' the Account was·Astophel Buja Mwakalasy_a,· ; > -·,. · .. , . . . . .. . . . . .. ' ~ ~ -· . . .. . .,. . . . . as the plaintiff's Accqu_ntant also a signatory in .category B. The na·me of-·, . this gentleman featu;~'.~. . ;red~mi~~tely,.)n •. the saga _l_eading to the suit. .:-: -: _·,: :_,, ' •. . . .-. .' . . .. ·' Sometim~on 1_2 November, 2009, _tt)e .... : ·.·. ' . said . . Astophel. . Buja . Mwakalasya.·:::-.; :,_. : ' ··· tendered a letter of t~rminatiqn. of ·his-employment Ql'J a short notice and·, - .·._· :. ' • •• • ' ·<' • .. ·, : • • ~ • thi_s aroused suspicion. on the Chief Ex_ec;~tjve Office_r of the _plaintiff(PW-1) ·:, .. : who, on 13 _November, 2009 sent a team .of his· staff to enquire_ with the• defendant's Wami branch about the ·status of the special Account. The. t --:.. enquir\i. <entailed, amongst others; -asking',_, for tt1e , supplyof a · bank ,_; ';, ... -·· 2 statement of the said Account,.·. Contrary to the plaintiff's··expectations, th.e . printed statement supplied ::Dy-'. the defendant fndicated. that the Special . . _ Account had a paltry balance of Tshs 20,· 883;-. 239/=, 'much less than Jh~ ., _: '.. l ' '· , amount: which -ought ·to have been .. a\tailable ·in the -A~count~ After-.. : ·:: considerable engagement with the defendant, the plaintiff. demanded to be.' •... ·., . · , . •= ) ,.••, •• .• •••' • I · supplied with copies of all withdrawalforms and statements between th~.. . date of opening the Aci~u-nf ··:~·nd 13November, 2"009 but the defenda:n,t:- was able to supply only some. of them. Having . examined the copi~s .. ·· · supplied, the plaintiff convinced itself that a number of the withdraw,ils.·. · --:~;::=:.:.~\-,: .-,: : ("_:-,:~- ·:·~ ...... _.. -~.! .. i ·'1~:·· . ·: .. .: :· . . . . . from the· A.ccount · were suspicious in that they were · contrary to th~· . . . : ,, ( ·,, . ..·,:. ,!: . ~ . ' t. . ' . . ~ ' . . . . "conditions for operating tl]e Ac;count,✓ in several respects including forgery . • • i . --~ , • ' : .: . ••• -· ..•. ' '~ • in signatures of the authorised signatories as well as withdrawals. above.- r ··::· . ; agr.eed limits. There being no solution to· the-,dispute,: the plaintif,f instituted._ .. . . :·:. . :· :' ·-- . .: .. . . the suit which is strongly resisted by the defendant. . Before the.. trfal commenced for hearing, my predecessor' (Sheikh, 'J) , ·_'. , • .- 4 ., • ·.:,:, th 1. .Whether . . on the 11 .· May, .. 2009 the . defend_ant bank did provide .• .' •'' the plaintiff. _with . ' a ,Hank. .. . .. ..staten1ent . . inqicating. . that. the . plainti~ ' -~) ' ., ' special ·. Bank . Account ._. N_p. .-SA . . .... 22 .12_505652 .. . •·, · ha_d .; a. balance .'. of.. Tsh. ; : ,• . 542,302,4 l l/32 .. 2. Whether ... on . the.. ~6~h . Se,ptember, . " .. .2009 the. . . defendant. . - bank did ~ ) . .' ~ . provide the pl 9iptiff. with)~. state.r:nent ._.indicating that the plaintiff. · • • • ••• "I • • ,' ;"' \ •. 0 • ,':.. • '•,' • • •• • ', • • • • • • ;. • special. • Acc:ount • • SA. • • '< ,~ No,. • ' • • •,22.12505652: • ~ .was worthy' .TZS 454, 561, 0 • .. M • • •• ,I•, •' • • • • •· • th .1152 (sic!) as at . the close of business on 14 day of. September, 2009.· 3 · ··· .. 3. -Wllether·the Defendant· bank ope:rated/ man·ag'ed ·,th·e· plaintiff's·. ·· -· . ·, TAFORI· SpedaJ·Bank)Accour/lf'No}SA.2212505652•:a•s .per·and:· in:. · ·••. • •,J • .· • . •···:·accordance ·wit,tt:·..the\"plair.Jt1ff's <mandate as· supplied.:·to ·.the· . · · defendant bank,,::-··.. .. . _... 4:•Whetherthe defend_antbarik·acted.negligently to·wit,. no authority- from the·- plaintiff}, to. _authorise- u_?authorized. payment and thus -. loss of TZS 364,672~897/= to·the plaintiff. _., : · . : .. ·; · ·· ·5. In the alternative to issue No. 4 above whether.the- defendantvyas neqligent in m:an.agem.ent . :of'.... the . plaintiffs· :. . ..speci;3I .. . . ·,.··'. Bank· Account . :· .·.. ', . No. SA 221505.652t.: -: i -:. . · .- · . 6. Whether the plaintiff h~_s, .su.ffer,ed: has any loss .as a result. of the - . •, ,· .,· ·· .ck.:feqdi)nt's neq!ig.ence... .· .... T :To what 'r·ellef;ar_e:the pa·rties. entitled.tq'. -: _·_ ·.,, : . '-. ··: ~ . .. .-.-, '1H~e./plai'ntiff:·~v.hoi IS ·\~p·r~sent:ecf:'by Mr.·j()Seph· Sarig'uqi .. learned ,.:.·, .:._ . >/:_;' ::Ad~cica't~ -f~'t')rYi .R: 'i. fti1~e}~ohg~ia ·&· c~:.' Advoc~t~s fi~lded '.three~ ~itneSSE;S: .<: ~ ·, ·.;. ;;·. :.: /:' i,~'-proof of. its ·ec1se. 'rv1d o'(th·e· witn'esses w'Jre ·signatories to tlie special.. ,, ;,,·. - 1 • • A~;count in category Av;hi.lsf'PVii3 testifled I~ 'hls tapacity as: the plaintiffs·- .r: ..: • • • I '. •. \, . -~ . . •: . ~ Director of -Financ.:e and Adnifr,istration: . ·· ... : ,. .. ,: . . . ·,, . '.• . ·. . ··~ ~ . Dr. . ·Ladislaus . . . . . . Nst1ubernuk1 . .: . .· .was . ~ the:. -first, . ·~. ·.. .·' . ·. ~ witness .: .. ' ·. ~ for. ':, ..the .plaintiff.· . :- . "'." ' . . This. _... '::: ·_ :. <.,-.:. .· . . '.. . had been .a Director ~ene_ral of the. plaintiff foreight years. between April,' ·;.:.: :''. . . . ..2002 and January 2010.vvhen he retired:from servic~. This witness (PWl).~: :-:c,.·.: <:.,, . .• .te.stified· that . . .. 1-,e. rem~~P~·red . ·-, . .. to..•.h;ye-_ .: .. r~q~~;ted .. ·.. the.· qefen.d~nt ._•, . . . , ··.. bank_·.. to··>· . ,· . .•• •., ,, ·, ,, ,' ,.i ·::·:,.'. . . ~pen a sp~cial ~ccoun_t_ in ~hic:h_. ~e ~~s·. a -_~ignatory to. .it .i~ category.. A , ,, ·:·i-·• - . ·, together·,~ith Evarist S~lbas Kessy Pw2.' He (PWl). produc;e;d in .eviden.ce 23' /:,::•;· · • • • ... • • • • • I, • • ·'• •-,. • •• • • • • • • • • specimen signature card as well as ari identity ,card in relation to the·.:·.:,.·:.. ..·.. ·. 4 ) • l · Account. both of which .were admitted as exhibits Pl and P2 .respectively . ., : · According., to PWl; ·. the, ·.m.andatff (instructions).. for· t~e- .operation of tb~ · · s·pecial Account were contatned Jn .a letter written to the :defendant's· bank·;'., branch but was not able to· give· particulars of the said :letter .neithe~ did he·,. .. terider- it as· part .of his· evidence. ·PWl told the courtthat tr.ie 9peration of-. <the. said· account was such that·.all·witt,drawals above ·2,000;000/== were ·;•• subject to one week's notice by a letter_ signed, by. one· signatory from eac:h,. .: . ·. : .• . · category. According to. PW.1, : the plaintiff could witharaw. without notic~·-.:· ·· ··. any amount not exceeding Tshs 2;000;000/= bY· filling in withdrawal forms •· . signed by signatories in the manner prescribed in' .exhibit P.1.prov!ded thc)t .. : not more than two withdrawals .were allowed-per week and not more than eight withdrawals per rrionth. ·:. · ·. · • . rt· w·as PWl's testi111o~y- that:_.:any withdrawals· of more· than ' .. .. . . . . . . ...... . . .. : . . ·. .' . . . . ' . .~ . .• ,• ' ~ .' . . ' : ' . . 2,000,000/=, without ·hotice w~re .subject to a surcharge of 1 % of the . ·.· .. . amou·nt iil excess of -the.:allowed :Hmit..:PWl :produce9 in ·evidence t~lr;teen .: . ,.· ..· · letters which were admitted :..as exhibit· P3 ·coliectively. which intended to:·· ··.; .. ' '' establish the. existence of condition~.· .for the operati.on. of the special.,· Account over and above exhibit Pl. PW1 .impressed upon the court that• . ·:- ...•''. : , } . '. :· .. ' ~~ . ·.. i :· . . . ·•.. ..: : :. . . . ,. . ' ' , the plaintiff cqmplied with all the conditions fo·r. the .operation of the Special • : • ••• • ,· • • •." ' I ••· ) :· . ; '. • ''. . ,. - Account and in some o~casionsit- re~ei~ed bank' stateme~ts obtained 'fro~' ' '' • • • • ., o I the defendant by its Accountant (Astophel Buja Mwakalasya). PWl made . . .·.-.. . .. :_ • _· .: ·: ,·J. : ·_ ; ·• . ... reference to two copies of the said statements one indicating a credit . . • • ~ • • • • ;. ' . : : •, : ,: , ! • I •• • ,.: •. •• • ~1 : • • •: : .:• • ,'. •: ,' •: ,' ." _;_: :• • •• . •; • ~ . 0 < ba!ance of Tshs 542,302,411/34 as :of 30 April, 2009 and the other one . • ,. . .• • • •. • .. t showing a credit balance. of Tshs 454,561,1i3/32 as of 16 September, 2009 ~~d the Court ad~itted 'the~ in ..eviden~~· a~ :exhibifs P4 'and- "PS . • • J • • •. • •• • I • •• ., '•\•\ • • ' • l . 5 respectively. However, PWl, got shbcked when bh ·-13 :Nov·embet;"· 2009 tie-· · .. received a:bank· statement indicating ·a.credit. balance· of Tshs, 20~883,239 ;: . which ·rneantthat m.orethan -Tshs· 303;000~000/== was.· 'missin·g from the,:,:••.. : Special Account: As. a -result of th~ loss of money -from tne said'. Accou-r~t,::_ PWl · ca.u·sed ·enquiries to be· made( with· _the defendant's Branch Manager-- · demanding tci be su'~r:Hied ·. w.ith.. fu11 · . bank .statements . . . -as well· as ·all ·:.:. ·. · ..·:. . ' withdrawal forms but rrianag·ed :to ·get- ohly :some. of the·m in seve~a.l .. ·.. · ":;: · batches rather belatedly aftefseverar reminders through a covering letter admitted in evidence'.:.:as: exhibit· p7; Copies of -withdrawal.forms were·. . ' . . tendered by PW1 ahd tne court admitted tt,em· as exhibit P6 1 through· 32. :., ·•··.:.i :. ·:•·;. inclusive. PWl ide.ntified each . of the copies of the withdrawal forms witJ1.: ._. mixed fee!in1Js in that 1U1at .according to him while some of them appear~d ·.:-, ..,; ·,,.- :; . to bc-::·genuineothers:-w~fre<not.,The·1atter:'hadforged signatures purpq1ting._: •,:· ,:: .. tq be _ )1is Whilst ·fri fc1~t H)EN vyere.. ··not.:' He ·_blqmeo the. defendant. for'.· honoring .• requests 6n. ·f~rged. -~ignatu,~~$ :~nd for lack., pf ·:co.or;~r~t-i~n. TQ;· ·.; :-:"_ .·', ":;,'. 0. • ' 0.. ' • • 0 0 : • .. \ 0 '0 • 0 0 0, • ' '0 0 •: • 0 • ~0 0 0 0 '•' 0 •• 0 0 • • • • ,'. : •, • : ' VO • 0 • •: : • prove . reque?ts . .. to the def~rxiant . : .. . .. ·. . . tq p~' . SllPP!ied . --~. . _with . . .. . Copies . . of withdra~al . . . . ... ,. : ::,:·,,__: · :::. ·. . . . ' ., ,• ' . '. ' . '. ·-. ;;. forms a11d lette;:;rs for transfer qf n1:0ney fro_m the special Account to U1e·: ·. · , :: 1 . .-:. :.: . . .- . ...:~:: .-' ·' ' . .. . .. . .· . . .. .. _: . ·_ . ,. ' t general Account, . PVVl __ .PtP.d·..... ·•: ,.. ' . .u~~d_ : : in . ~vioence letters . w~itten to .t.l?e ,_ . ,, " : "• ,.' defendant's Warni Brach which .were admitted iii evidence as exh. P.. ~8:·<:.:.:: -· ~-: . . . . . ~ . ·, collectively. Atthe ·end:·ofhirtestim9n_y, PWt·prayed fa'~ judgme~t by w~y:. ... ·. •. ,. ,· -.:·of. refund of the amount-~ithdrawn :from the ~!;pec.ial Account without::·· : · ., . . .authority asvvell a·s dam:ages, interest a~d 'costs.... In cross examination by Mr. D. Ka111bo iearned Advocate for the · defendapt, .. : . PW1 . . ' reiterated ~- .. ,: . that . ; th~ ba.n.k. . . . .' . . .'. . . .. statements . . .•. ( exh. . . . P4 and .. . : PS . were· - . . ·.. '. . . . brought to the plaintiff by Astophel Mwakalasya but was unable to .tell ... . ! . ' ' -~ . " • .. ..- ; i.. ; : . • • • ' ' ..,\ 6 ·whether the ..stamps thereon ·'{Vere genuine or-not ·although-I see .nothi~g:,·, unusual:·fbr •him,.to· say' as,. he :did>He· also.told the court that forgery of t~e_ ·.::;· -::·..- :·. signatures-- on -.the-• withdrawal .forms-- w~re. not confirmed: ·by ..._handwritif:i_g :-·:.: ·.:--: .:_ •..:t experts·besides.casual signature comparison . . .•._ ··:.: ··. . .. . . The second witness (PW2) was Evarist Sabas Kessy who, like ·Pwl .. ' . had alreadyretired froni the···service of the plaintiff whe~e he ·was adirectiJr "> ·,::. ,, -, : :::'. of Research Productio:ri :·till-·2011. "pw2 wk~ a. signatory_. to' the spe~ial_t',··_•,: . ;; Account together with PWi .in category . A..Thfs. .wit~ess repeated mbst:.of.-:. ~·:. ·· . ... ..:::-·. ,.. .. what PW1 had stated ·in· relation to the operation of the Special Account"--in.:' - -. _ \. . ~. addition, PVV2 stated that"the' Speciai Acco~nt was ·~perated in .such a 'way '.: · _ , . . - . . . r , .• - that there were no cash withdrawals from it rather tra'nsfers to· a generaJ- . ·, -. :: ,. , ; . an· agreement with the ·Defendant.. However he dJd.·;- -: · ' ' ., Account according to . . . . not ·recall having seen tr1e said .agreernent-Similar1y, -PW2 couki not -re~a.1.1 . . : · . I , • • . . . . . . . . . - instances where the plaintiff instructed·the D:e"fendant'to transfer the funds:::::·:: - .... ,. · . : fr~~ the ·sp~ci.al~-Acco·uni to a ·general.Account and the··am:ount involved· (Jf ·. :. :. -: ,· ·.:: any).' This witness could::not.tell the arnountthe plaintiff deposited ·into the .. · .- . Special Account and like· .PWl~ -.he disowned. some of the signatures in tQe ·_ , ·. withdrawal -forms ( exh..:P6)saying that.they were forged· an_d biarri"ed wh~t-. ·: .. · -_ he and PWl called suspicioustransactions·on the plaintiff's 'awn Accountaht::· (Astophel Buja Mwakalasya) as well ·as thed.efendant s'ayfrig- that.' it' acted: , 1 I,•• beyond .its mandate. P\/'✓2 could.not howeverconfirm -h·aving- seen any ;other·:..: - . . . instructions in relation to the operation of the Special --Account other than - ··exhibit PL - · · '.,•· ·,_•· ,,._ - . -- ~ .. . . .Th~· last witness. for ·.the plai~tiff ·was Kais{ A~bfndvvil~ · M·waikambo· . .· • • • .: ~ • ,,.. • • 'I, • (PW3). Unlike PW1 and Pw2; hewas stilr in· the· service' of the plaintiff 7 . ' . having -been employed in· the year 2008· as ·its· Director ·of: Finance -and'"•·:·_- AdmitHs_tration: •· Siniilarly1 · unlike PW1 and .PW2,.:thJ5_ w_itness ·was.not :a)::-,_:- .:: :,-, - .· signatory to the Special- Account but":he was awar_e, of its ·.exfstence apOJ_'l,;<:·. ,,.-. ~-- -. joining the plaintiff ori 1 _._Augw~t, .~2008.- PW3 who -:boasted himself as .a'; · - :· .-:- ~: holder ·of MBA and CPA testified that his duties intluded supervision of the· ·• · - ;'.: . .-· preparation and- final-iz.ation .of.the. plaintiff's final .:accounts· for audit andi.,·>. .- :. •: · . ' coordination of. Finance: and/ Hum.an _Resources functions. Like PWl and .:·:: .. :,-,._:. PW2, this witness narrated· the ·purpose of the Special Account and·-. .identified the signatorie$·. to it which ·.included AstopheJ· Buja Mwakalasya·,in :')i.· '. .- · . category B who is said to. have· l_eft. ~mployment on a short notice on-.13.~?.- , _:: ·: November, 2009 in arnysteri_ousmanner,. PW:3 _told .the court that. the . . sudden departure of.his subordirn.:1te who had all along:been responsible.for:_,.· · · ~ .: ·-:-, -: ·: preparation cf the plainti_ff:s J)0;oks·,of.Account. ·and ·operation ·of the spe.ciak)? - ·.,_.. :, • • ' • I • l ,< :·. Account: excited. the ·:plr.intifCs: '.irranc\-g~_r:nent ..cL1rios.ity .. - As, it were;; upon:--.-.. ::-,: .·.·enquiry . with the Defr~ndant;'s: . ,bra.rJch . . . .Manager. . whom-: he ·went- . . to- s.eeir..':' ·. . . . . . . . . . personally on 13 · Nov0rr:1b~t:r2.0O9t-revealed •that the .Special Account hadt >•::': · been h0avily overdrawn ;-J~ay;inc~: a· balance: of ·Tshs .20,833,000/= c.an:t', . .:T, ,. . . . -: . . . .. . . . . ~~~"· ;t1~i°'i' _{" amount which was too.!nsufficienttQ:cl~ar_a cheque they had earlier drawn.-.•-:-.~ but not yet- deposited by.the· said ·M\Nqkalasya. Upon being supplied with-.a ··-~2.&Z. : · · bank . statemf.:.nt up to.:13. Noverr1ber,: 2009, PW3. and his team came-tff. ~:~:.::~ . . . - ~ . . learn that. the special_ Account· reflected withdrawal transactions on that= · · very date and two· days earlier_; That revelation led to· a request for- . :_: ._: .··:_): . . . . . ~ I . . . . photocopies of all withdrmfJal . .. . forms anda detailed .: . . ' .. ;· .. . . bank ... . '. statement from the::./ · .· - : , ' '. ' date Account was opened to 13 November, 2009: PW3 stated that ·despite~·-- .'·-' ··:· , ·. .. . ·-_ . ,' . . .. : ··._-·;'... ·· ·:-.· ..... · : ··. .. .. . .. .. . . . . the prom_ises rnade by_ the Def(=ndarit's ·bra rich ma nag er, the ·requests were ,,,,;·· · .. ·· 8 .. - _· · · not:·proQ1ptly: acted: upon: neither did: the Defendant supply all_..-copies of the 0 •. · · . ,:; .- :_ :' .:wi.t.h_qra\lV.al; fonns~ •.Having ... ~xarni.neq.. the_ ban~ ~tqtep)~~t.. suppli~d. on •.1~:~ ,·. .. •· .. '' . •i:November•:2OO9;>PW3 ::stated.that -the-- bank::·.balance., • • • • .'' I •••:• • • • differed • .. • .. • •• ' • • ,._, • •••• .• •, . with,.the •'• ,_ • •·:, · ... ·•· · · •► ,-,6 ·. ;>. :plaintiff~~ ·b_alancein :its·_.b.ooks of.Acc()~n.t .9.n Jh~. . - ·-- ~a1J1e. dat~ wt,ic;h -inpicat~o . . - ·, · · · ·· ·....,. . . ' . ·,. a er.edit -balance·.of:. Tshs 385;5:61;113/52 per: -exhibits ·P4. ancLP5.: Hoyi.,ey~r/ .· · · ·:,:· .... ,. .PW3.. did .Qot~produce-:i.n ,~Y:itjen~~ any: ~.o_ciks: of.;:ac_coqnt, _to back ·up t,is:• · ~tatement. All. in all, PW3 .told the, ½o..urt .that an.:.examina.tion: of the-_copie$ •:·: ·· .... .... ·1 1 of documents suppiied by_th·e. Def~ndant~s bfapc;h revealed ._th.at th~re were·. · . · · departures- from .the st~_nqJ.ng . i_n_$tr.uction~ . . Jor t_h¢ .-oper~tipn.- of the ,Spe~i;:1,L:-:: . -. . . · ·· · Account in that· in .sor:ne:. ca$es 1 ,_paym.er)ts-- we~~- ._made.•,.~ithol!Jt ·.genuio.e. . . > ; ··· ·..,- signatures in category_ "/j" while irJ_.oth~rs payrpents. exceede9. sanctione,d . limits . , Commenting or:1; -~xh_ibi~~ J~§,:_.PW3, .sta_ted that .there• ·were . ~everal -~. ·. , . shortcomings which .:sµgg~sted.:;:t~at-Jbe .-de{er1qant · act_ed beyond ·the.· .... :··:.'··,: ...,:~-. m~ndate g·iven ,to. it exC?.mpHfied.)~yJrt;:qu,e._nt ..~i.thd. rawa.l_s .(r9m th~ Spe~i~d·· :· .·:, ·; •: , _~ . . . , ·.Acc:ovnt iD:':some case$.: I11q.r.e .:_~ha.r}.'Qn.e ;-Withd~aw~I- p_er:day-, The. witn~$S·::-.-·rr: '\. :· ..' . . . . impressed·upon: the cop·_rt tQ.-,finct.that_.th_~.-.Defer,id,}1;1t _wa$ i_n :breach .of th~:;-i.· ..< .. 1 •. ::·i' agreement resulting. int0,iEJ..JQss,of ·T~bs: 3_94,677,874/52 ' . which the. plaintiff-"_ . . -.. ·.···:. . ·/ . . . . _unsuccessfully dema.nd{:.et .for .a refu.Qd P.n.d nenc.~ _th.e institut{on- of the suit..~ . In :cross. examinatior:i,.>.P\t\l3, 5tc1t~d :_: that,,; th~: .plaintiff'$· ·_acco,unts. wer:_e_ 4 ··. ··· . .'· .. :, .. audited annually and · c;J-q.ririg "the.:,_p·roc::es,·s, th~ plaintiff_ through_ -.his :: department used to ask. confirm~tion·· of· the. ~c:count's.• balances from the'.:. , . . · Defendants and. speci:ficaUy, . th~; D~.fenelar:it .q::infirm~d· that. the. sp~ciaF, .. ·'. ·, · · Accourit·had-a balance \n:excef3s·.of. ~.0Q,QQ0,O:0OL=:,.as:;of 30 .Jun~,:20O8 but.:,: . . he• did not produce any-,doGurn.t=.ntary'.prqof .i.n-:court.,.·Likewise, ..apart:from-: , ·.· . ; · . '.making.reference to audi~ed·;accownts,~·PVV.3:.dic:f no.t-' tend~r·'1COpies o.fsaid·.': ,. , .. . . •. 9 ' ' . au·ditec:1 accounts·in his evide'nce. Like PWl and ·pw2·this witn·ess attributed the· blarhE(on the loss tb·Astbphel Buja Mwakalasya;s mysterious departufe ... . and.llle bank but could not teil if there was arii'employee':of the bank who. ,...... -:,,·: . had been implicated in 'a,"Crimirral case invotvihg the loss. ·-With that,· the · plaintiffs· case came·to ·an· end.· . .. •.· .The defendant called only one witness o_ne Errnnanuel Bushiri (DW~) ·;· ·.·... \-:·. . . . . ·, ' . : . ... : _:. . : . . . '.: ' . . . ·. . . ' ~ . .. . .. ,·. ~ who. was . the defendant's branch . ,··. Manager .·· . at. ..Wami . _,,. .. Branch: between Marc;:h,• . i· ,_ .. •.. . :·. .-_: . ., ' 2008. . and March, . 2013. DW1 was .. aware of the Spec:.i.al Account as we1i· as:. _.. . ., : ·· . .. . . . . ; . . . .. ' :, ~ ' . . ~ . the mandate contained in exh. . ~: PL He .denied . . .. knowledge . . .. .. of any other·-·,· . .. .:,,: ... :._,:: · ' . '• ' •. . . mandate or agreement for the ope_ration. of the special Accountthan exh°fb.it :, ,·' .Pl.. In relation to exhibits. P4 and PS, .' . . DWl . . stated that .. . ... the Defendant never : . · ,..... ,;' , ·, . . . ' . . . . . ~ isst;ed any bw1k staten1ents to the plaintjff in May and September, 2009 by-: ...:·, ·,.- • i , way. of e~·hibits P4 ·and :~s.·:_-~cc~~di·~.9. D.01:. ,exhibi,ts .P4 and PS. h~d •·.! . _-;- ..:;- ·.. ~ t~r .. s_e~eral shortc~:H'rlings distirigui~hi_n_g· :~h~~r~-)ro~· 9~8lJ.)ne baqk ~;tatements·: -.. : .<. •: • ' : • • • • • • • • • • •. • - .• ',' '"'• • •,. • ,: • • • •. • • ', I , ·, • .' • '.. • , , is_su~d·_by the bank ·\nth~ or_qfnary _co_ur,se of_ bu?iness. Such shortcomings .:-: . ·: , ' . . • . . . • ·,. . ·. • , ',·.. . . ... . •·. ·: . . '_, r jncludethe type c>f fubber ·sta_mp in,pres~ed on the _exhibits quite alien to :· ... ··.. ·: , , the bank~ unknow.n sign~:t.ur~s in the exh\bits, font siie and format of the :> . . .. . . . . . ~ · tran'sactions being in sharp· contrastwith· H-ie. genuihe . . bank statements·>' ... • per exhibits D1, D2, D3, D4 arid DS he teiid~·red ·in··his· evidence. '.'!' . ..... . . . ,·,· . .. . . ' . ... As regards frequencies ofwit.hdrawals . .,· . . .. : ·.·. from the . . Special. .Account, DWl. ,. told the court that the plai_ntiff was free to withdraw. cash. from the Special: " . .' .. ' ' Account on demand through duly filled· i,n and .signed withd_rawal forms\in · : . · • • • · • ' •. . l .. :_- ' . .. ' • . • .. • ' '. . , ... ; I , , ' . • • as much it could transfer money to _another account.- Regarding supply. :of,:.·. c.ertifi~ate of account's po~ition for audit :,purpose~~, owi~~~nfi'r~ed that ... ·..... , . . '.. . . . ,· . ~he ·,· bank supplied such certificates one of which showing the special Account · 10 ,• ., I .. positioff ·as -of -30 June, 2009 but the·. plaintiff :.d_id: not e;><press a0y ... :.. ,·· . . . disagreement or complaint with it :prior· to. in$titution of the suit. As49=,~. •": <"'-, ,..::: ,· .:fa-ii LJre, to act-on ·the plaJntiff's .request for: supply,:-of copies of .. w.ith~rawJ:JIJ ,, ·; · ·:_<::: forms, DWl told the court that the plaintiff. was given enough .copies lor·i·.. • • • t I .:·•1 ·. · · her to verify its Account's'pbsltion wt.lile waitii1g forthe;rest.-AII in all, ,O\N:1 .-:.-. ,, · •r > 1 was-adarnant that the ,Defendant was -not negligent in: any _vy:ay in operating· .:· ·· ·; ·•,• .. , .. .. _ the plaintiff's Special Account· but. acted within the. para_meters of the ;'.: . mandate contained in·.exh-:Pl.,In'. cross examinatiorT, DWl·reiterated that.:.·:'.:· ::·.· ;_ . . there was only one set of.instructions _in_ relation to the operation of the·.. . . . : .: : . ' . . Special Account per exhibit PL In· relation:to the commission charged-on .. ··.' f ,.. ' . •. .• 1,: withdrawals in excess of 2,000,000/=· without notice DWl stated that the Bank was entit!ed to charge -tha-t .-e;"otnmi5sion- n~gar~less of any standing .. . . · instruc~ions from. the- plaintiff ..At:the end -of.his te$timony~ DWl prayed fo~. ·., ·:-o.:: .- ·': . ,· :. the dismissal of. the ·:suit ,,with-.:c()sts. :·:.That marked _the end of the :, ·;.•.-.::'.>.• .· ... ,.. ,_ . .. .Defendant's case and ·conclusion .of theotr)aL . -· . ~ ' . ·~' : ' ' '.' " : ' ·., ,"' ,\' '': ', ': "•, ·... ' ..... ' ' ' ' ··. ' ' ' .• ' ,, At the closure of the· trial; the court ·ordered ·counsel to make their ' . - • t, final submissions in writihg'..' Th~''iearned ·counsel 'duly filed their respectiye: ':·' ". . , ... .. ,; "\• ~' ' ' ~ ' written· submissions oh· the date· ordered and·.· I ·am grateful. fqr th~ir_•. ·. · · industry in• addressing the court ' ' :f : '.: ,, ' ·on their .·respe.ctive positions. Whilst. I wiH ' ' : ,' ·,' ' ' '.· ' ' ' ' ' ' ' • ' • ~ ' try .to pay regard to their submissions, for obvious reasons I will not touch: , • • • • ••, • • t: • ••• -'• • • r , on each and every argumen(cotinsei' cOvered in their submissions. W.ith .·:·... '. that _I now move 'to m~ke ,,~/ det~r-m'i~~tion' On.the issues 'fram~d-· in the, light of the evidence addu~~a· ahd 'io:dr,~ei's su·b~i~si6~s: ··. :· - · . . , _. _ The leaned Advoca;tes afgLJed_,iss_~~s ~o.. 1 -and2 tog~ther and. I-t:hink · ··.:· rightly so due to. their interrel.ation.·The learned Advocate_ for th~•Pl~in~jff._._-. 11 · urged the Court- to answer both of· them· in the ·affirmative- because,,. ··-,, according to him,. PWl, pw2 _and -PW3. hadadducec;I sufficientevidence: to,·'.:.-:··. ")'.•,, ·_; prove that the Defendant- supplied- bank· statef'Dents ,by way .6f _exhibits: P4 .: :·: :: ;: · and PS. It was Mr. Sang'udi's sub_mis~_io_n tha½ the ._credit -:~alances on the. respective dates tallied with -the Plaintiff's books of accounts. It was the·,, · . -- ·· .·: learned counsels,. further submission that thedefendant's attempt to disown ··. ,:·· : . · -..--·'.::. the said exhibits was ofno·a·~~ii°··because .it had-.not led-any evidence-to·_-,·::.• · ·-· ·_· distinguish the font si~e -i~ ~x-t~ibits P4 and PS -fr~m the ordi.nary font us.ed .-·--:_._:-_... !. by. the Defendant. . . At any ·rate, the leained. counsel.argued, the Defendant,::. . _·. . -_·.-.. ,__-. . ·} ~ ' . . failed to cooperate witt1 the Pl,3~ntiff in supplying hank statements despite--..:· :-- . -·.::-.-- -_:_ . : ·.. . . . ~. ; ' ' ,. . . several requests and ren1inders as evidenced_ by exhiblt PS. Not unusual:, Mr._ Daibu· Kambo, learned Advocate .for the defendant urged the -Court to . " •,: ' . · answer ·botb. :issues; ~1qainstJ:he· .. .. Plaintiff. The ·1earned .Advocate ·subrnJtted-.:. -<.. · _·.:.·· ~ . that<exli.' ' , , P4 and -P5 did no1: 'originate from- the,·Defei1d2i"nt-accordin~r to~- - . ·. _· , ·. 6wi;s 'te~timony. It :was' _.-the_· le~~ned COLmsel'~ ::~Ubrtllssion. '•that, -_the'. ·: _· ,_:' :,·: • • ., •• - • • • • •• • • •' • • • p • • • ·'_( ' • • • testimo~ie~- of PW lam{ PVV2. pointed :.clearly that -j{ was .Astophel Buja.::·.\:' . ·. Mwakalasya who bt:ought the~ said documents -to-the Plaintiff's management::-:.-.-,.:-:·!:.~ ,-. : .· rather than themselveSQbtairling themperso~auy from the defendant. Thell'r'j learn~d Advocate subrn;~ed f~rther t_hat the___ Pia mt,~ ~ad a duty to_ call ,ts·.•~~_.~ _forrner Accountant to explain the s9.µrce of the said exhibits and the fact:i.:~,-;.i;,J tllatit did not call such a·11 important witness entitled the court to draw _an;-,::· :-:·-:•. adverse inference against the Plaintiff on the authority of Herned Said v., ,_ ::- · .i,, Mohan1ed M"bilu [1984] TLR 113: · . ·r:here is n~- gainsaying that t~~-i .Piaintiff's· case islargely hinged on ,·; : _ · exhibits P4 and PS. As the pleadings and evidence ·will bear testime:ny; _. -, 12 -· -there·;is -a huge dispute on ·the veracity ·of.t_he said documents, based on the· . .. .'.: · eVidente:·:of DW1: ,Before·,J:::considet::,the· ... probativ.e. •\ialu(;.:.-of, the -said: ,.,-,-·:. _,, d0cu'rt1ents; I . find·it -r1ecessary;to,:·address:·.my:m111d..to· ~heir: .propriateness~n \ · •;,.:-- ,:,.: _ · 1 the·.light of the ·issues:tmder-. consideration·. :There· is: no· doubt that-ex,~ibits ,.,_ :· -. ./ . · · .. · . :: ·'. ::_ P4 and PS purport-to 'be., computer pr.inter· outs of TAfORI s·pecial Account.··, !·· · ·No.· ·sA-'2212505652. ·.They,,.a,"e, :,-for: ..-that. matter--, part:- .of .banker's book$. ·:. •, .:· governed· by section :Z:6,ofr.the-.Evider:ice Act;(the Act). -Cap ·6 R.E 2002 as~•::,.,- .. :· .. , amended by· the Written·laws- (Miscellaneous. Amendments) Act (Act ~n.... · 1s·_of ·2007). Such ·docurnents can only·.be received- as _evidenc~. when···. supported by. proofas stipulated -under.sections 78 (2) of the A_ct tbc;1t•it w~s:·•... • I '•·• ., . -made in the usuar ordinary course· of ·business and.that the s~me a~e i_n th_e custody of a bank (see:\section:78A otthe Act as amendec;lby Act No. 15 •Of ·:· •:.: .· 2007)-;~·rn terms of section-:.ot78· (.2) o-f the Act, :proof may be given by _q .· . : partner or. officer of.tJ1e::.oank· ,orally or:by an: affidavit''Short of meeting. th;e.-.... · preconditions set~out-.q.nder-:the:.aforesaid:.~prbv.isrons ·a bankers book cannot . .- : ::_' ./ . be received: ( 9dmitted) .!t:1.:_.e'v'.,i9~,nce_. J-ta.~e.. nqte .:tha~ · e_xhi_bits P4 and· PS·,:-. ~-. :-' · • • • •.... •· •, •• ,' ....... ' i_ '· • ••• ' • • •• • • • • were admitted as part of t_he. pl_ain_tiff's evi9e11ce without a~y objecti08 from · .: : -- : ·.-. ·: . . ; • . ·,·; :. : ', 'i ,. ,i. .. : . . ._·. ··: .- .... ' . . .._ . • . the. defence. However, . . their admission . . :·; . ·. . . . . : . . . .'. . . .. . . does not. . make' them. to . be. :.. . . . . .~ . -,. : ' ' . . .- . conclusive proof of the contents_ of what. they purport to be. ·Accordingly;'..:- -. . . 'f .=.:/.->•::.:···-~-~\ :~ ~ :'. :. ,_::.~; ·: . ··: .."!'·' .... ···:... . :· ~ much as_ r· cannot at-_ t~i~- s~,~ge disr~garq. them; L_ will: _not_-att~ch. much · . ., . ·.... > .. '; . ·.: j. / :. • .·· : ' . . . . . ... weight to them because _ t_hei_r_ ~viden_t_ial value·_ha_s been s~r.io_usly pill:lt~d, ~Y • . . . •: . . _.-::.·_. ; :._·; ;', ·. _:.'. · __ ' . ; ·. . . .· _·' . lack of proof . that ' .they·' .·were made in:the . . . : . ,t·:_ ~. ·. ; . .,_ ~-. \ . . usual ordinary c::ourse of business ··. : ~ .! : ·; -~- . •••• • ·:_ :: • ' • ·, :. ., " let alone the proof as r_eguired by.. sectic;m_ ?,8(~) _qf .t~_e-:Act'th?3t..they w~re in i . : ... • . ' . • • ~ '.,, . ,. : . ; '... . ~. . .. ,l . ·• . • • • .. th_e custody of tt1e Defendar:it Indeed, there is sufficierit evidence through ·:.. ·· the~ • Pi~,;Qtiff's own wit~1~5S~S "fha't ·.tf,e'\~;h-ibit~f ~4: a~d ,·~s ~w~re at .all t '· .. --; •• • "• f • ~I ~• , .• 13 - -_. · material t1mes not-in-: the custody"-·of the Defendant .but- in the· Plaintiff's · : · _____ -_· - -·-:-.,·:custody having been brought'_by:to·othe·:plaLntiff·by-·a:person.:who:•has not:·,-··_:·:.--'.'-·-· : been'. called to. .give ·evide:r.1~e'.- to :prove.-tne· source,.:ther~of~ , That :evidence·. , .;::- . -- ,. , gives-··credence ·to. OW-ts t~.s!hn9ny: w_rio ... denied- -having· issued -su,ch •:: _ documents to the Plaintiff .-on ,the material ·dates- -or.'·at· ·-all. To put; ·it··-_ .__ - - ·differently, the Defendqnt . .h-as.- .disowned-t9e--e_xi~tertce- of exhibits· P4 and::·~:._-,.;._ . · I . .. P5 .as part of its banker(s ·book$;and thqs there-js-no probative value in the,,:-: :_,-·:., · . . . . said · documents to· prove that the ·:Plaintiff'$· special- account No. SA· .._: :· -<~,-- ., -_221.2505652 had any c.re_dit .ba.!ances ,on the_·amounts ,indicated therein. At: ._; ..-:·-:" : any rat~, _the Plaintiff whQ:. had-the-buroen to: prove on both,. issues did not -· :·,::__ .. , . produce in evidence its_ own books.-of A(:cou.nts to match with exhibits .. P4.· _ . and. PS· but worse stiH;- it did,·.n0:t ca_ll.-_-its-: erstwhile Accountant to explain.·'-;_ ·::,: .- ,: .how.a.nd.~where he -0.bta-ined·}hosi; :~x:hibits··which'the·_Defendant denied.• ,<_),.'. ''/,i; . ,. .. ' .. ;. supply_il_)Q~.tn· its VvTJtteR:St~tf;rn~ot .Qf:-defence~,_:As .righUy._submitted' by the-•-;•:,·,::-:_.: _· : ::. ;, :learned--Advocate -for· t:he Defendant in the--.abseoce of pa_lpable expianati:om ;:,·: .· ,_'. : ,-:-<. ·- ·-_-·frorn such- q rnateri . . . 91w:i"tn,es;-; ;;rs Asto.ph.eJ;Buja Mwakalasy~ .. . .who ·is said·:tcr- ''.' : . _:_, ·• -- . . . . . . . . . have -brought· t~xhtbits-,<.P4-'. an(J' PS-; -Jbe._court: will be-,justifi'ed in drawing·-.:: ·>--.,>. > • "/ • I • adverse inference agai_nst ,th~. Plaintiff on -th.e authority of H_eqied Said .V. . · .· Mohamed M_bHu (s1)pr41). ,·whi~h-: _.I _ :- am in entire . agre~ll]ent with:·,..,,_,.;- ::!/ . - . Unfortunately, ·even J?W:3 ,.-.:vv,bo", b9aft~d,. to- ·_ be coordinating _finances.· .:·. • •.;...:::·,r • I ••'• ' . functions with the Plaintiff:did not make -ar,iy_ credib_le evidE=nce:·in . support-of---:·.:· . . . ·. the credibility-of exhibits P4 and.--PS< · .- ;_: :_ • ', . ' _ ,·.-·.: :·i···.:1:•\, <:,'.i_'. 0 j • • • • ..... ~ ~-: • • •• _·· • ..: • • • • • ~ • • 1. . • • The le·arnecf' Advdt.ate ·for ·the ·p·laintiff has impressed upon methat. _·. :. < > _- that ,I:-.. s.hould f(nd that· .PW1·:_.·and PW:2 were. -credible-. witnesses who: . -· · .-·:: ._ hadfaithfully wor:ked with·t:he·.,Goyernment.to their retirement who had no:~,:- 14 . f ·: -:: - . · ;,.inte'rest.iii'-·.rnaking.liesto-the;Qourt·,VVhiJst 9rie:niay.be·:tem_pteq:t0 go BIOf:19"/.:.--····:_-,··v •i:::-· . .W.ifh-the<st1bmissionsiby,the:ptarntiff~s::l.earneQ ·Adv0cate,.it~e-:c;ircurns~ap9.e.s,·:: :--.r <•_: :_•.; ·•; _ · ·. oFthis'i.case:'.dittafr~·-~a· diffetent,,apprqqd1. :Withot;Jt:s~ying..;'~uch pqou.t ~~Yr:-/< ;:,/:~:)··· ,.-.: A O • :. ,• • • • • ,< -. ···... ·ne~·.there·~is:no tjispute--thaLb:otb:-PWLarJd PW2 ·were:;_seniqr :qffice,r-s- -of tm.~ -~ ,-, ·.:.: :,. _;,:. .:,.:: ··: ,, . >· Plaintiff: UiitiL-their-.TetifemenL<Lt jsrequ·ally ·comm0n/;gr0Lmd tt]attQE;-·9½19{'.'.:/:.·.: ;·, .: .: :_:·... we·re '.-Signatories to the;j~peciaL-:A~c:ount"rn categqry>A: ,,and~,furthermor~~t· ..::i> <:: .. · ·there ·rs .little or,.no :doubt .at alLthat<tMe fund? jn the -spec;ial ~cco~n_t}rver¢:<- -:. : . :1 ). · . ·public.•. funds. · · somecif- .:which <.alleg€3dly. ·. :<yvithdrawn,-· -·lo.: mysterio~_s:,_,~,: . -, >.:··. ,. circurr.istances during :::their :::tenure, . . . .or ·.office;· The . ~Q.;_ g:~ntl~rr:i~.n./ ~a<t"'::,: . . "·,a: . :·_..: ·. . - interest' to serve in. orde(.Jo·:-save: their,:Ja<:es. -and.ithu,s it.credibility-: h9s<~) ·.: anythin_g . to go by,· tt i,s highly. douptful· that tbeir cre.diqi.lity,.yYould be_:.,f.r,ee.·:,. . . . . ·>,:frc'.>m:-.suspicion . .rn··, the;;upshot/ having:_.:.regato. to ,the ·>$_h_q(tcGm_ing?·:-,j_n·. , 1. · ::, .. • •. · .,. ·<·. ·. exhibits· P4 -and:•PS ·as:'_well(:as··.the: u"ns,ltisfactort'•oral·:::t.estim,onY. Jro.m; tt1e ?'.-,':<: ;. · ·. . . :; · .-,. i. ·_; P·la1ntiff's JNitnesses;Tfind:r~ttd:·hotd·thatthe:Plaintiff . . . . ha~_·._nc>t d.iscparg~d . ,t;;:·:. . :<r·\.. 1.,;'_.(\:'.. " . ~ ' - O::·::' ,,; : bur.de"i:1:/tO::·:pro~ie'>:its:<-case;; :i,ri·:iissue, No~ t1-:£ind:;:2tw,nidh,:it,~ '.CW$W~L. i[l ·>tb~J-/,~'.. . ;)-': ·. - . . . . : - - .. · . k ·. - - . . - . - ._ . . -. ·· ·.• ·. negative. . . cl ·.now. rn_ove,:ttY :iss.u.e NOi?3l,:vvhich . ·. . se.eks·:-;to- . . :.eqquire-·wh~th~~).i~~:;(1:: ·'.-?::.-. :: -, J:,,. . . ._- . ·. : . . . . - .,.. . . Defendant-:operatedthe.:SpeciaLaccoUhtiin·accord~-tice,:with:tlJe . . . . . . ·rni:1nd . • 9t~>:i:.:::.'( _;· : . ,··:: . : . , . . ' ' . . •' . . ' . . , ,:r . - ~- r : ',;;' • .' .. · ·::. : ·_ .. · .. " - . ~ ·. :: :· ~ • . .. ; ··,~,. r•._·_: '', ,~,. '.1.•1 • • ,.,;,, ,', ~ . • . ' .· It is noted that the third issue·was_framed.on the-Understandin~j' that·· :'.:, :.: . : :_· ·•· • ~-• •· --~. ;,: ·- •' ; :•, :•·,· • · •, _·-,- _.·_ 1 ·.••;~ ..--~~;'·1:•;;-,· ···-.:·. ,.-· \•-' ·,·.-,:··~·;: ;.;, ,.:r·.-r-:'-·-.··} ~· .,.,r-_·f"~t: ., t .. ,_~~.·•,:J • . the· plaintiff supplied to the defehdarftinsfruc.tidhs' for·the 6peratiotl oflh'e :'···:Jt·<< . ·: ,. . ·, ,.:~~.',_~,t·:?..••.,• ·••, • ,'.•f . • • • · . • . · i •. . -'.•,••t•~··•.•f,,;••;,•.-:~~ -:,• •,:;,'".,,,l_:·~ •••, -~w•:•.. ;·,. .. e -!• ~:•,:s°.•/·. •·• !'_.<>•'.•: . . special.· Account. over: ahd . above ·"those··: contained. in exhibit'· PI:· The'. ;_~i. . .·.: ,;,: . . . .:~ , :, :••. · _',•.' · · • .: · :._':•·•·•:.:•:;•: .. ·:_~'.j' ;·•1•,.·:•.. ,'..' .. •· ..•,',,;'•.·.•,;····..~:.,.'.-'',,,.·'.'.-,,:.·:,~, •· ..'?"'?<,\,_·~{,·· ~.•,~,.'.~••:•·•.'/ ,,, r. . determination of theiSSLie 'willtherefore· depend cirfthe existence of the· said~-:·:, . ': ;, : _: :-- ; ••, • • ••• ••, ~ .. - ', ~: • < • ••, :_: •,• ~I'•.' • •, .• • ••I•••,::, :• • : • .. • • :.~ ~hf •• • .... ~: ••/•: :· •• • ••• t'.!;,:•.,,. ~:- •.• • _::, ••:•i •(· • < (""> "'' •, • ·. instructi6ns. .Noncompliance. with instruct'fons'\n'· exhihit "J:i{'is·' ·ae·a'lt··w1th .;__., : .:: ·:,. ·•· '. '. sepa~a-tJ1/iin, ISSl~e ·Nc/4'·:ahd 's~~d,~·-. ikJ'r'n~d,:A.:Jvo2Jtk~-tcir\k6:e;.plair1tift'- has·>·:. :·.·····, ·_ . · , , • :, • • , , , '. '• ,• , • ·• · : •' / • • I ' : : ' ". • • ! ,.' 1 • ,' .' , .: •• ' ! : ·, .,. , (_ '' ,( ; · ~' i. . ; .. ' invited tt.1e· ~ourt to hold·that ½he pla'ihtiff:.has pr0ved;·bot.h;th·e ;et($tence::pf:.-~·....·: ·.:;. ::,_ 0 /', .. 'tt,·~ said ih.str~cti~ns 'aricl 'brea-~h- bf it r~gardi~~~i:'·of .its::f:a]lu~,~~~tp t~r)cJ~r.i·t:-(n:.·' 15 - ·. evfde·nce; ··The· ·learned ·Advocate took the· view· ·that the· fact that tt,e · ·. 'Defendant did -not:deny:the contents ·of para· 7· of:the:.amehded plaint was· c ... ·,:: <:1: ,suffitient proof-ofexistenc:e··of the -mandate. ·rt w,is ·the·/learned GounseHs·. ,_. , ': :.. : - sub111ission that there.·was -proof- regarding requirement of ·seven days:, · .:·1. ,_. notice for a11 ··withdrawaE; -in-·excess'·ofTshs 2,000;000/= as well as ·a":. .· ...... _· commissioi1 of 1 % .of the- a·mob"nt in-excess.-of-2,000;000/=:-\,vhere no prior•.· -·<-.:,' :.: . I · notices. Were given :as· evidenced by para 7 ,0f'the ame·nded· p·laint whith.: .- : . •·i·. ::-.: stands undisputed int.he Defendant's written statement of defence: Further-._:·.... ·<,i:·: ..' · proof acc·ording to· the- leanned' Advocate was through,withdrawal forms . i . · ( exh. P6)' showing frequer.1t: -\ivitlidrawals. and :irr many cases beyqnd, _I 1 ••• 2,0001 000/=- cc)ntrai:y ..:to the mandate.·. The -learned counsel ·for the . -,.. Defendant s1.1bmltted ·that the evidence, of -PWl- s1Jpported by. exhibit .Pl _=.-:.· i: ·r:· :· ,: . ,inditate-that:no· other m2i11datf·.,\J\'r:1s~gh1en·to . the:-oefendant by the _Plaintiff:::.·, < : t ,.)_. •. . .. ·bthefthah: exhibit Pl Whtch'.the: ()efendant :comtJUed withto the letter:. It is:.::-: , ··. :).·:· :. ,.:: c:6mrnoh ground:th;:,\t (a·i1· Witrtesst~s:ifbrthe Plaintiff "m'ade- reference ·to an:·::. ·,; ,<;• -.::1· 1 . agreerrie1itfor . thGopCrat-l.orl . ·. . . ·c;(fhe Special Ac~ount but 'nb' such agreement,:_.· . . . ' . . . .: .. or'. rnandate "'jas tende~r(~d;•i'rf?evidehte :cOntai'ning terms· and conditions for,·. " .- . ·. . ' . . ·. . . . ' i~ the operation of the -Sp13ciaL Account--other- than ·exhibit Pl. ·This·· t~e t Plaintiff's-: .·_ Advocate···.>.-< readHy :_·. •acknowledge · iri · hi's . submissio~s •. · . · . . • .-:.: Notwithstanding-the·absente·ofthe)sa;d ' . ,, agreement/ . . . mandate . apart ' frdin .. ,:'.· -':.;;:;;,> . . . exhibit Pl, the· le·arned: -Advocate-: iJnvites the ·Court to: infer existence -~of··::": '· additional mandate from'..'.the>JJ°~e·adrng~,·e·xh.ibits Pfr; DI, D2, ·03, D4. and · ·· ..., ·. . . D5. _With , :_. respect, . · L qp _not .th.ink,.. ! ,·: . . '. i : ·::.,.: : ·:·- .. "; :__ , ... :··: • that there .;is : any·: merit in the . ·._·. . . .. :- : '• . : --: . . . . · ·, -·--· Plain_tiff'ssuggestion _as r.'.Nill:_~nde~ypur to.explajn _shortly,. To start with,.· -· -·--:;-- . .. . . . . '' ·,... ·.' •· . . . .-. . ·, . ·. . . '• . . .. . . : the. Defendant .·· . denied. :' cti'ce_goricaily .. ·-,. -.· . .-··:, ·. . th·e. existerice . of. any . conditions ,. . stated . . 16 · · in para 6 oCthe amended· plaint requiring t~e .plaintiff ~o provide. stricr · ·: . . pr0of,: 'lt;'is, in- .my view highly inconceivable that the d~fendant .who hac:! ·· .; · .::=: :. : • o • • • •• • • • •. .• ~ o • I - • • ·. denied. . the .. existence of. the . . ' . . . . said. . conditions. - could•. .·.... , sudderJly . . .admit ... - .. of . the.ir . ' ' ·".·.. : ..:' .. .-· , ~ - ~:·' ,existence in ~the next.paragraph· of: i~ defence. Secondly, the wi_thdrawal:.,--'·: ·... · ··. ·: • '•• • • • .. •, • • •. ~ • ••• • r • .t• forms (exhibit P6) by, themselvescannot· establish that there were: any~ .. · ,. · .. special conditions for the_ 9peratiol'.) qf _theSpetial Accou~t in½luding _ljmit~Jn:>•-· ', · . · the . withdrawals and·. t.he_ amount perm.itte(j. for each day o~ mon~tli . ... · ... ·· · According to the evidenc:e; of. DWh"thich ·r~mains uncon~rove~E:_d,. ~-~the..-.-~-. plaintiff was entitled to withdr 9w· _r:nqney from- its account on -.d.e~-~!:1.d. up~n:/>· ·. ., ·. •· filling in and signing withdrawal. forms-:per. exhi.bit ,Pl and.~~~ defenda~t-•. was contractually_ bounp. tp .. honour its customer's i~struc;tions.-. )?Wl's .. evidence is consistent: ,witty the: gen~rally-,-accepted · pr!nciple~. governing~.· banker customer. relationsr,1p.·one.-;beirng th_9t the.re . ,is an _implied. term . in the-·~-.•". . ' ~ contract b~tvveeh the bpnker and:+ts -custor,ner:-_tt1a_t_.t~e forme~. P.ro.mi~es,to._- ·.:'·. ·. · .. ,. ,· ·r~:pay .the-latter .a surn-.equiva!erit. to :th:~t,-paid -into -his _h,ands-.,s~~:~heldon;.-:.· _: :, .. :~... _._. and Fid.ler's Ptactke anct Layv of ~:a11J~ir1g.-_1.1. th E~.i_tion at .page 25 .. 1'8i: ,:·:. :·.:..,,:"/' :·: . the absence of any ter.ms tq-.t.h¢ :cor.:itr,wy, -qne- cannot successfully c!rgue ,as .1·:i:.: . · ;. :.:: •; the plaintiff does that d.ef~nda.rit q~t.ed b~yond the mandaJe·-~Y :'allQvying .. . . cash-withdrawals as it_:djd provided thejnstructions in e~_~ib]t .P.,1 wer~ .met,. · :, ... · . Thirdly, charging comn;1.issi_qn ·on exces~ :<lrnounts thrQl;J9h .e~hi~it?· p-1,. D_~/ :·. D3, D4and DScannot se.rve . as·: eviden.~e .of the-~ ~xisten~e. o( · SP,ecial . ' - - ~ condition~ . in. the . light of. :th,e-· evjd~nce. of DVVl -who -~~at~d- t~at: _the:~· Defendant was ·entitled. ,to : cha.rg.e. •the, commission_ r~g 9 r:tjl~ss -of th.~-.· .. _· . existence of the alleg~d- rnandate ...In the"?tb$~nce pf specific_ !1J?:t~1:1c;:tion_s,. it,,_. . . will be unsafe to· rely··o·n .the transa:1::tiOQS:·ir:i ·.~x~hibits :Pl-, ::D2, -Q~ 9 ~d D4. :. • 17 ·:aridDSas :proof of the>existence of such·•instr'uctions>'Consequently/ since·: ·. · ·the p-laintiff has·· hot discharged its: b'urden to-, prove( the exi-stence of any: ... · ·· ·· · . mandate or instructions ·aparffrom:·exhibit Pl~ Twill -answer the third. issue··_.:. . . ~gainst the plaintiff. In. other ·words, the defe'ndant was under no obl·igation. ·to compli 'with non' existrng ·instructions ·in•-the. ope'ration· of' the. Special- ... . . ; : . ·.· ·Account.-· Issues No 4 and. ··s ~:r~ de.dic~te~/to·:~n- enquiry o~ negligence· that 'is to say; did the defendant act n·egligeiltly in ope-rating the Special Account. 'leading to a loss· of Tshs···364,672,897/=?- ·The reamed ·counsel for the_:. plaintiff preface his submissions o'n the· issue by reference to the defiriitio~ · . . . . . ' of negligence from Hlack's. Law:·oictionary>ih edition referre_d to· in The.· '.:·· ·, ' Loans And Advances Realisation Tr_ust J'-'ART) .v .. Barclays Bank Tanzania Urn.ited,· Commercial° case No 54 of 2005(unreported) in which M.assati,J (as h:e. then.was) artlculate'd the ir1~1redienls of negligenc~ iri the , : . . ~. . . . ·: :. : .. •.:·~: :.•:. ·.· :· . . ·.. . . . ,; . . '·~·. ·,; .,~ .. ",• . context· of the· banker'·: customer· relationship. There is no doubt th'at the ... · . case reflects a SOUl~d and correct po'sition··of th~-' l:aw but' its relevance to: . the instant suit js a differ;ent·inatter ~ltqgether. The learned a~vocate for the plaintiff invited me·. -to~ ·hold that the :defendant acted. negligently by ..• . · authorizing cash withdrawals from the· Special Account beyond agreed· .. . . . . . limits. I have already held in the preceding paragraphs _w.h.en dealing with the third issue that the ·exist_ence of li~its_ in wi_thdraw~ls from t~e Special : Account has not been established·. and I wouid thus·· .agree with. the ... · . · defendant's leaned Advocate that tne•;e can be no basis upon whlch the_ . _ . . . . . . . . . .. . defendant could be· held liable in negligence in the .manner submitted ·.b\t . . . the plaintiff's counsel. . 18 y • · · The·; learned Advocate. foi• ·the ·;plaintiff submitted further that· tre ··defendant breached its·-duty of care· to.the plaintiff-by- auth_orizing c~sh·.:· :·--:·,·.- .~n::.· -·withdrawals ·on',forged'sigtia:tures ofthe-$igriatories in_ category A per t~_e·.:_:::.·:··_. 1:.: --~ testimonies of PWt and PW2. The--learned Advocate· urged me to find that. ·; >: _-;_ -: · forgery was suffic:ientli proved· by-·· both ·witnesses who ·stated in their····· · _; · respective. testimonies··that. t11°ffi( signatures: ·in·: some of· the withdraw~!..: . ,·. ·-.:· .. form·s and letters for transfer o_f ·funds from- th·e special Account were:.a· forgery. Despite the absence ·of- proor of forgery by an independen~:: ·. : evidence, the learned. Advocate-·would me find that proof by the persons::.-·.·,·.:: . ~ ~ who disowned their signatures": in :-the' disputed :withdrawal f~rms_ · was·. rd enough relying: on commentarie$ from The Law of Evidence, 3 Editipn :·:· · by P_rofessor L H Dennis:at page 506, par,r12;12.·dealing with proof:of,--: ': ·•..:. • '•·, ~. :.•'f handwriting :and signature; The:·k~arbed advocate ihvited me not to bel~eve .:_- · ... the E;Videnc_:e. of DVV1 i1Y·relatioii _tot.he genuirieness of the .signatures in the:: '- .... '• . , •. ' . ·. ~ 1 ', •. •.• ·. ,• :; . . ' . · with:drawal .fonils bectJ.use he· ·did 11.bt personally -examine. the signatures ·at · . ·;\ . .- -.· · ;- · o, • • • • r -,. • the bank's. counter· at:- -the.:-.:tirrie.: the< withdrawals; were .being · ma.de: . ,. -According to· the- learned "Advocate, ··:othe ,:best persons. to prove t~at the. ·. signatures in the withdrawal forms matched with specime_n signatures i._n exhibit Pl should have·beef1 the'banktellers . or atbest--their supervisor . . and ~ ·.:····. tile· fact that none Was-·'-caHed· to -·give evidence· spoke volumes ·of ,. unfavou.rable evidence ,igai:nstthe'sdefendant.-The- learned adv<?cate for ~he. d~f~ndant submitted thatthe plaintiff has not ·di-scharged ts on_us _of proof. of forgery _and thus the·-tw"cf•issues oughtto·be answered ~egati\(ely. • •I:,,,• : ·.· .. ·· · It is common ground that ·forgery a· serious ar_legation as it .were. was_ ·, not pleaded as such by :the plaintif/: It JUst\e~tured in the' testimonie~.~of . . ... 19 . ., · PWl and PW2: But even if it was pleaded/it required :"strict proof to •~e- sustai ned. ·There •is· sufficient. authority for that -proposition-'from- case Jaw: :.,:.. -, . . afew of which will sµffic;e· _for. the· purpose:of =.this Judgment: ·In· Omc;1n,.· .. :·_·- -,, •;. · vu·suph V Rahma Ahmed [1987JTL,.R 1'69, the Court of Appeal ·held that:.,.: · ,... ·. the law was already sett1edthat when" the question whether someone has : .. -·-·'. : · • committed a crime is raised in civil pr_oceedings that allegation need:·.be ·:. .... ·: , ... established on a · higher . degree of probability '. . ··,· .. . than . that which. is required . . , ,_, '.. ' ' . in Ordinary civil cases, the ··-- logic. andrationality ' . . ·-. . of that rule. being that the_.:·_:;-·. ·· - . . stigma that attaches. to .a,n .a~i,rmative_ finding. of_•· fraud justifies the ,·, 1 .-: •• , .. . . .imposition of a strict standard of proof. Earlier, the defunct ·Court of Appec3.I.:.: ,·;··· ·· ·. ··• · : . . _: .··i: .. ··.·:.. •.. .. . . for East Africa expressed similar stand discussing stan.dard qf proof in cases ... .. . . '.,:-_· . . . '. ·.. . ' . '• •; ' . _· _involving fraud · holding that allegations of fraud· must be -strictly prov$d·; ·.. ·..:: · .·. 1· ::· .: . ·. -; \: . :' ' . .,'.' .. ''. _,:; '; ' . ~ thougl_rthe::standard.:of. . prootrrtay ~ ' ~ ' : ,.. . . ·. n0t.be so heavy. so-as~to . .. . . . : . . . . . .. . . requ.ir:e.--proof:·., . <· . .- , · ' ' . ·' beyond -reasonable- doubt~ · something . more.· than, a.· m~re · ba:laoce; .oL ··::: '. . -·~ro~abillties iS' requit·ed-~ se~:R.~~ilal . '. . . . . . ,. . ·. .. . ~ ·:. -_ ·. ·. ·. . ' . . Gordh~·nbh~i :.. : P~t.el.VLalji''·Maka.njL~:·.-.,:., ;:\.-:=:- ·,:·: . . .. . . . ;.. . ' . . ·. . ._. . . .. . . [1957] EA 314 at p 317.:- Admittedly the tvvo cases•involved proof of fr~ud : :- · :_. ·.- -. . . . ~:-· . . .. ·:. . . : . ·. ·.- . . .. . . . . . . ~ . .- ; _, : ~ ' -but I see no diffE-irence-·in the 9pplication of the· rule in both cases wh_i.th . .-. . ,.· . . .... . . . . , .i are criminal in nature. Wi_th respect the· plaintiff has not discharged Jp; . . . . . . . . , ···: .. ; .. . .•. ·. ••, . ' . . ' . . ~ . ' standard of proof not only on ·a higher standard but also-on mere balan¢e. ~: \, . : . . ,. .. . . , , . .. . , .. ' , . .· ' . .,. .- ·. _· , ' ~ of probabilities.· Whilst the two witn~sses claim that their signatures wef~ .:· -.,. ·: :;. : : : . . .. · . ,_ ,. . . . ': .: . . forged, . the defei1dant .through DW1. · claims that the . signatures . . in tbe,.:<:_ .. . . , . :_ · . :. · withdrawal for~,s -are genuine and match with the signatures.in exhibit.·P1:· )·'':.-·. ·.::I .'·.· : ·.- ... and thus the . defendant . cannot . . be .taken· to have· acted.- negligently·Jn ;:',;._ <:- :·,· : . . ,• ' , · authorizing cash withdr9wals from. the. special Account. The learned~, · advocate for th~e ·.plaintiff wouid have me frn~ that since : it is th~ same 20 .. persons; who say their ;-signature.s~ were·· fqrged they. must. be believ<rd because they.are the -.b.~$t:.P~r$or,s to say-so r~ther than . the defendan.fs: · ··-witness who did ·..not. wit~ss .t:h~:'.'~igntng~ T:hat ~rgLJ_ment a$.sumes that t.~~·_:,;-. ·. . signing· of the withdrawqt fo~rns vva? done l:>y the: si9.natori.es at the ban~':?'. :·· 1 ·· · counter ·in: the presence: ··of-the, tellers which. <is .not.-supported by any··-.-· · _evide.nce on record a_ndJ. pr.opos_e.to at:t;ach--r1~> ,wejght to it. -Be it as it may;.. -: .· the reliance on the commentar-ies,-in.--the ·.b0ok above cited has no much ' • . ' •. . . ' ,· '.. . .. . ! • assistance to the . plaintiff jn:-the . :qontext ,of·. the facts in . this• suit because.: ' ... . such commentaries cou_lo ·ODIY- be-· rel~vant)f the wttness~s were being -- . · · · called to prove their sig1\atures. .rather than disowniJl9 ·yvhat the defe~tjant:· says . it is their signatures.· . . Jn rnyyiew, .in cases_ s.µ~h as where . there. is· a . ' . - dispute as to the genurnene$s,;of. th~>signq.tures_.the plaintiff. o_ught to. have . -led sufficient evidenc:~ t..hro.l:IQh. ·inclep~nd~nt:- wi_tne$$eS ;specifically :·a . .:·1 :·.:.·.-;. handwriting. expertfor tt1e ·,c.ourt:-t() form an.-opini.on-or.,_. th~_,c!aim.of forg~ry .. f•},· , .. .-. · ,more relevant since it ·is. dear that_:tn.e withdrawal Jonns·were presented by.: ·. ,. - , .. the p·laintiff's own Accoµn.ta.ntvv.h0se,,sjgnature is_.not -disputed. It wowld - · ·, · have been a different matter. 9 1tog~ther .had there. been. evidence_ that t~e withdrawal • forms -w.~r.~ .. -:nOt>-c!.!Jtho.red·,,: .QY--·:• the: plaintiff's ·- authoriz~d _·. • • • .. - p accountant and this .is wo~re ·th_e: failt.;i.re· to ·calJ him _-as q witne?s a~racts ::. · more questions than answers.In_.the·:circumstc3nGes, I .am l:Jnable to agree_. - with the learned-couns~l,:_that .forgery- h_a$, been ·proved to: exi~t in e~hibit _Pl ··· ·thereby justifying·rnaking_ a .fin.dJng -th.atJ~e.:d~f~n_dar,,t-wass1egligent. in the-.- management .. . . . and operation nf the. special Account. Lastly. 01;, the, issue of· · ' . ·.,. j ~ •• _. ~ •• ::: :', . . .: .\· ; ··.-:: • •, ' ··.,· :: ··:= .:·... . :•. .,,.• pattern of ·withdrawals as a reason for th~ ·d~fendapt ~o- be· suspici9u? of - ., ... , .. ·-. 21 · the transactions. The learned advocate for the plaintiff has invited· me to·· . hbld that the .pattern was;:too:: ·suspicious to·~nave eluded the defendant's.. Cl.friosity. tcf alert ''the plaintiff .o·n the:· :authority of. The· t.oans. ·.And .. ::·: :, ,.... : ·Advances: Realisatiorr·Trust {LART) · v~ Bar.clays. Bank TanzanJa,;_,··· > .. ,,,. · · · Lirn·ited (supra). That case has little ·application ·here for··two reasons/: ........ One·, I have· already accepted the.evidencebf :OW1<above that the plaintiff. ·· ·,. · · was entitled to draw funds from its· accounton:dema·nd provided that there -,,:.:: , :was ·sufficient balances· bot subject to,fulfilling ·the requirements contained. , . i~ exhibit P'l. Twd, uriHke in•tART's case/there. is·sufficient evidence in this ·, ... · case that the person 'whb. presented the withdrawal. forms and collected:' cash from the defendanfs counter was .no other than its own Accountant · who wa·s ·t(signatory t6 the Special ·:Account,:. Unlike in LART's case in whJch · T, . the· an1()UI)ts:~were.:fairly:.:·1arge .and :·fOf'.ithat··matte.r ·attracting cause for··;, . .· ·. . alarm:/· .1rr: the• ir1stant: ·case .the;,pattern. o'f :cash .· w.ithdra·wals. were in the:• '. :, > '; •. fegior{ofTshs ;2,.000~0001--· . 4nd th_esEfWoU~d.fiothave:cohsbtuted . an- clCt pf:>; .. ~ . . ;. ) h'egligcince 011, the; part!, of'lhe . deferrdant thereby 'causing loss to lhe, . ·. :.. . . ·plaintiff. In the upshot, 'havi11g'.:.rega·rd tothe, evidence on. record! answer '.. :::: issue 4 No-and 5 inthe 'negative.· .. ·,. . .. -· · · Since I -~~ave fo~'r1d: n~: ~vidence t~: 'hold thE{ defendant liable in : •, negligence when dealing with':•is'sue ~io· 4 ~nd 5 above, the answer to issue·::::·,:.,.: ·• No 6 whi~h se~k~· to ciete;~ine whether th~ plaintiff suffered any loss a~. a · result of negligence 111·ust be· a·n obvious one that is to say; no loss could ..· . have been sustaine·d· in :the ./ai)sence of n~gUgence:' At' an/' rate even if (' were. to find the deferid~nt llcible i',{.riegli.ge~ce, I. would· be reluctant to. say . that ,.the pl~intlff suffered any ioss by way ofthe a~ou~t· of money alleged. ' 22 'to have· been withdrawn fron:r the- Special ·Account· .This:is ·because, as the· ,..... , . ,. ,; ·learned advocate for the defendant has~ ri:ghtly submitted· such loss has pqt_-.. :- ., :: r.· : · been proved by.the· evidenc:e··on record:· Acc0rding to the plaintiff, the o_n:IY: ·... :. :, :- . · basis~for establishing· existence of funds in the special ·account is -~o oth~r.-:.: than exhibits P4 -and PS. ·but ··as I have ·-already ·.held that the said ·exhibits,- have no evidential value ;worth. of. bel.ief to sustain the ·claim for loss. Thpt: ·takes me to the last issue dedicated to::reliefs. . . . . . : . . ..,-1 ;:··_.·-: '-·. . . • . . . . ,• Having regard to the· findings ori the issues framed, it is obvious that the . plaintiff has not _.discharg.ed its, :'bu:rden of pr~of on the stand~rd. .•· ·•. required in civil cases. Consequently, I dismiss the· Plaintiff's suit in. iJ~-. entirety with costs. Order accordingly . . L.J.S Mwandambo JUDGE .. Delivered in court .in the presence of Joseph Sang'udi -counsel for the· Plaintiff 2016. and· Daibu· Karn.be counsel for the Defendant this 31st day of May . L.J.S Mwandambo - . :~~~__;:..- 23