19950817 TZHC Dar es Salaam

.::-.~-=-~.. GIHTED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA •' ·,. IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA ,\ .;,-· C.. ·:·AT D.AR ES SALAAM :.:·~ . i·'.. J•-1· \:' CIVIL C !lSE NO. 21/95· Lt,. r .t. TANZANIA .3lil!LJ SA~ARIG .T/1:D. • • • • • • • • • PLAINTIFF "'· . 4..,<- . f i·ve:r·-·u~ ,. THE DIRF0TOR OF WILD11]'E) • ,, # • • • " • • • DEFENDANTS ~'. ATTORNEY GENERAL ) ( ,: -;~-- r ;- ,_ ----------·-·- ~-.: ,., ; R U L I N G . t.- } 1- ;: :·, . . M.APIGANOt J • Disciplinary prece.~ding has been br'eug.p.t by the plaintiff rp~ny against the Directer ~f rildlife by which an erd:r te Um.mi t the said Direct_,r to pris1n for- contempt of. court is · a1ught, and in this ruling I will re:f er to him· s·imply as "The Direo c·~ ·: T. 11 . · Th.-- : ..ib::·evi3ted background of the matter is thie. The . . safa:ris, and waij allocated fiuntin·g plaint if:: is ,m outfitter or' ·tourist· huntingib.!.ocks by the Director for tlJ·,t purp1:·-se. It has appointed agents abroad t1 look for and bring clients to ·Tanzania for hunting expedi- tiens. The agents are required to collect tees from the oliente ·and transmit . a portion . of the sums• ~evied to Tanzania; and . I •n its part the :plaintiff is required.to export the trophies gathe'red _by the clients during the .expcdi tions to them .• r:-' 'By a letter dated 3i1/90 the Director n9tified.the · p~intiff •f .his decision to confiscate the _tr~phies acquired by its clients during the 1988/89 hunting. season. · His· action_ ~as allegedly based upon a default on the part of the plaintiff . . ~a.cause the fees to be remitted. And by a letter dated ,: -~ _w1j~5 he notified the plaintiff of hi~ decision to withd~aw_· •• .' ~ ♦ • ·' · the hunting blocks from it and to rem(".)·ve it '.'from the list o:f· . '•. ,'' ...,. \,,; .. .--::,_,,\. t>l)erating ca::t!)anies in Tanzania", the justification of the ,':, .. aat~on be_in 6 ·';h~. allec.ation that the p~aint~f:f had failed to -:· -.· . --~_, e~port the trc·)!:ties ~ . . ."· j.'f·, _..~- Aggrieved., ;~20 r·la::.;y~if'f instituted this suit. on 31/1/9.5 .1/.· :)~~ · . tQ · impugn the val:i.di ty of ·i;he decision of· the. Di_r.e~t~;t". ·and,. te ;t_..;,;: seek, inter alia, a nullificati,··n of the decision and. a ... _·_:: · ·. ·... ·\!~1 reatoraiion of t~e blocks to it, • . ~·- ': . ·.· /ii;~} ~· .;... ••..•..• • / 2 •...· . ,. ' .; ·.••-_r!' , . -··~'\" 4. .""-- , ;\.t~:·.· .• ~ ,· J' 2 On the same day the plai~tiff todk out a chamber summons applying for a temporary. in.junctio.ri to restrain· the Direct:,r from· giving effect to. h·is decision. · Again on the ~ame day it obtained an interim order, upon an e~~parte verbal application, which enjoined the Tirector t~ suspend the withdrawal of tte 11locks pendi?g the hearing and detcrmin·::.1tion of the chamber summons. •·. ',, o~ 1~/5_:j5 a consent order was made in· regard to the ·,. . . . chamber ::1L":.~.1.·.,cDs that the terms of the censent c :i.'der made by Kyando·: ,J.,. iL ·:ti.so, Ca.;·;c.: ·Ho. 8( of 1994 should be hon9ured .. ,·. • J by the Di:r2ctor, The charge against ··J,;..:e Directnr in this committal· proceeqine, is that he has ::.·c.iusG,; . tr) co,·:ply with the order~ ' •; cf 31/1/95 and 12/5/95, in tlat he ha~ not returned th~ blocks to the plaintiff. I pause here to say a few words about Nis0. ·caus~ N~. 84 of 1994, which I will hC;-nceforth call "The other case" •r "that oase 11 • It was an application for prerogative , . reliefs brought by the plaintiff, along with two o~hers, against the I'rincipal Secretary in the Ministry of Tourism, Natural Resc.urces ~ . and Environment. In relat·ion. to the· plainti~J· that case was in all respects similar w~th this suit, s3Ves ~8 just mentioned,·for the parties impugn~d . · and th 1; rnc,Jt; of proceedings, and this. is virtuall~ -re(.,ogni~~d by the J)ir(;:ctor •vide paragraph 25 ( o )' of his c·ounter-affir, davit in the injunctio~ proceeditlg in.this ~~~se, ~nd it may:_ \., • ; . . . - l ~· '~I. \ ~i • also be observed tl:cJt ·t,}-:a~: count1:::1~•-AJfide"Ti t is· alm9st ' • :\:~ti , • : ,¥ '-~ a repli·ca o:;:: ti,e oue ii,.: filec ii:i tLat · ca~·e ~ . I. should, · . · .. ·.... _·: ... • • • • • • • ' • • .' t, :~~=·t: therefor~, be permitted to p::1y atte1~"\;ie:;1. ond m.3ke referen'?es · ··· . \{. to· some of the materials 2,nd -doC1.im_e11ts .obiiaini~g th~rein and · ::ti:\ adopt certain findings which were prc,nriu.ricec: b:y this.· court~ U,l')on .an applicatir,n for a temporc:r.y ··injunction broµ.ght 3 ' , dispossessed the applicants •f the iJl:·cl-::s, Committal .proceedi~gs were then bro~ght by the applicants again~t the Principal Secretary and the Director f0r ' . contempt.- The applications failed. This Court held that the Principal Se•ietary was not answerable for the wrongs which were ••mmitted by the Director; and that.although the condm.ct •f the Director could be regarded as perverse and.detractive -~f · the status quo order, he could not. be hel·a to be... in contempt, regard being he~ to the fact that he was neither a party t~, the subston·~ive application nor th~· person who was restrained by the in:u~c~ion. The Dirclcto~?· has deposed in :)aragraph 13 of his· co~ter- . ,_·· · .• ', affidavit in the instant application, as he. ·.did in the other . -,:·,: case, but the plnintiff den:tes: like· it ·:~id in that c~se', '. :· that the re~toratio~ of the blocKs to •the -ulaintiff .· . in·.. AUgust, 1994, \vflS made upon the plaintiff I s·· 'undertaking that it would. pay the requisite bl6ck fees. I dealt with this ·point in the other case. I Qid not accept.the Director's·· ,· ' ' assertion. \ ' . ,,· In paragraph 15 of the counter:..aifidavi t the D;i.rect~r-' : .- m~kes the allegation that the blocks·were available~to th~ plairitiff for utilization for t1e whole. of the 19~4/~5 ' ' ' hunting s<"::ason, which started in July, 1994 and ended . . . in ~ March, 1995- 1his allegation is undoubtedly false, and.the I . letter of 2,4/1/95 gives him that lie. · ·, ·· # -'\ The Director also makes t.l:le allegation,. 'in par·qg~·aph _. .. 10 of the oount er-affidavit, that· what engendered the . :/_':, wi thdraw2l · c)::'.' t:'e block 9 was. a failure· en· the part· of th~· ;·_.:·. pla·intiff to meet the requL,i te block fe,es.· I just ca~~t. . ., ·,:. . help thinking t:~at the Li rector has misconceived· tpe present .: . .:.··. . prf'ceeding, if he does nt'.lt . have a ser.ivus credibility . · · · · /._; . '•,•· Pr•blem. No dnubt, his deposition is at variance with ~hat. he wrote in his letter of 24/1/95. As we have already see-G,,. .. -· ' ' ~ ., ' ,· he 'stated in that letter, in t~rms explicit, that his ·deoisi.gp. was predicated upon the plaintiff.' s failiµ-e to consign t~ep.hies to its clients abrGarl. ~·< ,:· i·,','·i-" '· tr;J;;\~~-~~1.. . ~• - ,· 'L. , ; ·.') .. , . .: ·-t":__.1,_...,: .. ~- ~.~.:.~ -·~~ ·o I 4 f ,I the Director's argum-ents in parag:r:-aphs T~·1e c::-::J .10·. cf j ·8 and 9 o ·E ~it.... i:o:!..lnt er---:-111. _cta -:it i. s · that the real purp0se I J I of the o:..·dr~r 1;;iv<2n by ~(y(,nd'), J. on 1~/8/94 •in the 0the~ oase ~a: the pr~ser,·atic~ of the ~ondition in which things were at tJ-h: ti.me when the orch,r was uade·. I htf'.'e also dealt .,· with. this ~oi1: ~ in that caGe. I held that thA t~ue intend• .. ment of thc:ii; order was the preservation of the state of . . ' ' things whicl1 obtained at +.lH". time of filing th~-t; case· uhtil the rights of the partie;; conlcl be ascertained and .finally determined. And I demonstrate th.:.it that is exactly what the Director took the )rder to cvnnnte. -?aragraph 26 of the counter-affidavit sets out ·two o6ntentions. The first- is th~t there is--ri~ suit which-has been properly instituted in o,urt; and that an interim injuncti~n cHnuot thus be granted. I must ... suppose . that· this : .· oontentioi:1 lias reference to ·the othe:r case~· . The. second·· . argu:1e:: ~ ~- .-.: ·';J.1[,t tlH' injun'?t~on granted by th~s c6ur_t ha·s . passed 0<-1-i:i. ·: ~.V (;i1 the pi-·0 1 sion ~f GN -~:oa/9'1 , 'wh,ich·,- in far. as is rclev.:::-it s f.'L ,...1ul11tes t~:~2t . temporary ,ilnjunctlon • a.. '• • •• • • ' •", • ·a,· I ~, .. . .• . t;. . . \ prevaiJ s tor .'. }:Jer:i..::-;c.i w: (~:tx months only, unless that period is e::"'ve.nr:ted.. ·. · · · \ ~-•; · '·;..> ' ''1 i. :.. . J, ,·;,_: .,.. .' _ .. l am qui·;;.:: unable- to a 6 rE:e. , Ti.1E: D'irec~or ha~ possf~b.fY ,.. ._ ,:+?_ p:y_~rl.09k~d the fact that ~he ::,8cond- in,jun~tio'n 0rder i.t1 this .Jas~.· ~as made r;n 12/5/95 ~ and it cannot,. .. :theref or·e_,. be,.~~~~ that. its period has ex9ired. I i thc.Dir~ctor·has in. mind~ l ., • ~ . . • , . • • J ,... j;h~.-- ~x:-:_parte order of 31/1/95, it j_s· p~inted out . _. ,h.im t~,~.t. to -~p._e. b:r;-,~_~c~es charged: are saicl tC' have .occurred when that' •· ... ·•·_-, .. crder was still in force, which renders·GN 508/91 absol~~eJ.:.y ! •,1•,: • '• • I , ' •, (t •,.... • ._ I '• o • • •,_, ••, , •' 1 irrelevant. - . . . · ,..1 · , , · .· : \.. • · ·, • • , • • • •j .. •, :··. ·~ · r_•' ~ ••• ·r ,::3 . . . r.. pr<"ceed t.-·. consider and. deci.-de. the ·qut-~stior.ii whether·, t;ll_e. D!ire.o_tor is in. b~_each •. ;'_The. l'.'Fd~-~- ;31/11,s · ~i·r~-c~e~jj:/,. :i o.r rt.he Director to sµspen<~. the. wi-~hdrawal of ~he ·:sui~.~--~Jq9ks-~ :!_ •• , .· ..... ,.-, .A~ the ·pla.'Lntiff rightly oontend~,-/t4at p;rder:· was n,ieant__:·J~· . · .·. .·. _ •• ~ .. , • l • '\ ;prev.a~l 1 i-1.nt il it was disch~rge4 s,µp:~:r,_sf#de¢ by; c1_npt~~r~;•. . o.~ :~.;· ',.• ~;rder. i.~s long as.it e~:ist~a it· should_.l?,~v~ . b_~e-~. _o)?eY@~L.,: ' . . , .by ~h_e 'Director. ;lnd t,: a;.Ll intents- and~ pt,.1.rpo_se's-,_t,.q.~··o'rde;,:·:· . -~ }:\ad-· the effect of restoring +,}:ie reL::tionship of the part:i,ie~· 'i,· what.it wns before 24/119? • -Bu_t. what· h-~~ -~ap_pen,e~.- ~.t);i'at'. •::,:". the D:i.r.ect6r ll~s· 'not s,enly refnsed 'to, suspenf ·the' ·:wi't'hci'ra~/a';( . •;\:,,:, ( . §~:t. has purported to re~alloca'.i;~e-.\be. bl~ic·k~.t.·•to i_/~hi;::?~ffl.~'~·• ,.=}. 0 .·. r:·: -:.··•. 5 ·~--- ·':i~u:. ·-t··.· ,!. .':·;·1·' · .. i;, ,,,·,. (,.•- ... ·. . 5 The order of ~2/5/95 displaced th~ ex-pa~te order. But as I hav~ already pointed ~ut, that:order embEaced the terms of the order of 15/8/94-~ade in· the other case and those terms were designed to preserve.the state of thirigs ·existing at the time that case wa~ insti~uted. I sh~~ld also repeat, by way of emphasis, that that is exactly what the Director perceived it to imply. . .' In the cii·cumstances I entertain no dr-ubi; whatever -that the Dir~ct~r has actually failed to carry out.his obl:..g,r'.:.:ioi;,:; a11d that hli-8 failure constitutes a treach. to co:1.s ·_,· er and decide the point whether' :tTe::-. t, .1. 11:.. v e the Director is r.n c,ntempt. His contention in paragraph 29 of the counter•-:. dfidavi t is th;:.t the:ce was · no intention on his part to show disrespect t~ t!.e courts and his plea is that he should be pardoned. I have given the matter my best '.J.:.1€"ideration and I a~ scrry to say that I have been ·unable ·to aocept the "Director's · contention. The Director does·n.Jt deny that he was ·cognizant of tha·9rq.ers; and I may repeat again that he understood. ~h~ir pu~pb;t. But he still refus~d to gi~e possesdio~ of the• blocks back to the plaintiff. Not' onJ.:y- ·that.· -He-pro- ceeded· to re-allocate the block's to o"tner ·persons.' This, .· _ in m~·view, is clear evidence~ and r· am satisfied·beyon4 all reasonable d 1 ubt; that Mr. Ndolariga, -. the inou.mbent .,.,.. . Director, . ' ,, . .' ., has deliber8te::..y set the court at defiance. arid actually_.' • I • ,; • flouted the orders of the court.· .·.·_. Lastly, I h~ve to c~~~ider and 4ete~mi~e -t~e qu~sti9n of punishment, which has· :.i],._so exercised my mind greatly •. '. :- . , . . . • 1 ... ,\ • - l Disregard ~f ,,::':':'lers of court. ·1s certainly a mat~er 'o~ .: . .,...,i_ . ... _grav~ty, VJhatever the order ma:i" b-:-J B!''.d irres~ect:i,.v·e of~-'. . ' ·whether it ·has been irregular·ly or erroneously made. The-.._.' pu.nitive jurisdiction of the· co11rt to punis_h ·for breacp..'is: · :· . is based upon. the fundamenta·l princ.;ipj\;' th~t·::·i t· is. for -~he·: ' . '·J}< g1~d -of· the public and the p~r~ies th~t ti~~h, -t"~der~:-aho~id ·-·~c)t ~- :.:t; , • • • /'• • , ,1 , t , , .: • < , I • , j ! .fl'~t ' be "despised or slighted, And· I .think .it is n·e·i ther incon- · · . gro~s no~ ··e~travagant t9 add- that a party_~- -h~w~i/~r :·highly_.. ,', · }:t pia,~d · o; ~eii-oircumstan~ed. t • •. • •l'it' he may ~~ppen·':t~ , , ' .• ' ,,.,.,., . - ._.oJ&hti • • tci· ·'. . •• • 1 . ~• • ,.... .,.,., ' · ~·b~: k.ntw· that .he is obli'ged ti o~·ey .t~e or<3:ers' given 'b;( §~u~t_s.,. :} __ :\,: ~ ·.,. .l '.,•. • • I" • • ,,' •• " . • .• • • ·11 ;•6 •':"t:!j"":' .-~---· :,. ' i .• •,' "" ., t.: ,\<:·•• ... :1· 1:•· .l:·.,· ·,. ;··~;.,l'l·-"'.···~.:_~ 1 .::·~~ ) ~. . ··.. .) ..~) ' , ., .·•.,,~:•• '•. \ ,,• 1, ~•",· ·•. : '' t\ •r-·'·.• :! ·.4_.'f:"' ' . ' ,._ ·, . :-,: t ,., }'· :_,· • . ... •:..•,/i'°.. 1-- .•. ~ 4#, -~ c·;,~i __ ~- _~l-.~.--: ': .=-~·-- -."'~-~--~·.·s~ • I 6 and, inde:,·_., t 1-11:.1t ::..s pe:".'fectly ·consistent with. the much talked about rule of law ~oncept. \ I The prj_me i:·-bj ect of p~oceeding:::; of this nature is ·to vindicate.·the rule of law by ~-f~nii~g of contempt, rather t:;. ' .' than ~6 punish o.n individu~i. It_ seems ~o . me, '.1nw~v-~:r;. tha·t:,_: Mr •. Ndolanga' s degree 0f contu·1acy is suff.icier..tly· great t~ · · justify_ this court in inflicting puni.shmc·nt upon h1.m •.: Indeed,..,.. I co'nsider his contempt as bordering on flagrance in· the very· . ::-.: least. But I have, nevertheless, hasit~tid .to send him to ~risen straightaway. . . . The law holds that civil contempt is also punishable }?y imposition of fine. The penalty I award, which, in my judg~ ment, corresponds to the measure of contempt and the injury due to the pu·1:1lic interest, is that Mr. ,Ndolanga· i$.· to pay a sum of two l·m~~UT•~d thousand shillings ( 200, 000/~) as a fine · within a Eipr:l'.):J of seven days from t~-day, ... and .if he defeu~te to gc -'Go jaiJ. to serve a term of .three m~nths ••. · It is· so ... ordered. It is also ordc~ed that he pays the cbsts incurred . . \ by_the pl~intiff in this application. · '\. Delj,vere:d. ~+~' · ·'·11-·· .. :/ ·-:. ! . Advocates present. ~ D. P. ~Ai:'IGArW '· JUDGE 17/8/1995 Mr. Salula: I pray for leave to appeal to _the Court ·~f. Appeal. Mr. Nyange: ":!. ',,_-_,;. we·are cpposing. the application. ·,:. \ ', '.·':' .Order: (. ::,;: ... . .,._.,·, ,, .. .. ' , If the· f'irst defendant wants to appeal . fr.oin the· Ruling, . '"',- bea\' · ·. ·. .. ·: ·\ ~.. · ~ ' ' ' ' • ' • ~ • - ·, .o '. ·• be is to make formal application ·within th·e pre scri ..., 4;._'fj~ 7 c,-;/ ;:, ' per:tn(i_. ·.. .. : ·.,.~: .·: .. ·,.. ·........ _, >I .. , 'i-~ ,.,' • ., ,' >~ '. \. \-> ' D. i?. M.AJ?IGAlW . I : i' • • >· •• ,,•,!.--._: "· •• , 17/8/1995 ' : .. -. ~':1--,' ·. ~ .; . . ~\~::_/..-; .·. ',· .~ ;: . :. <~·/,:}~tf: