19990809 TZHC Dar es Salaam

•• ·.·, IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (DAR ES SALAAM DISTHICT REGISTRY) AT DJ-1:..-q ES SALAAM I" CIVIL CASE NOo 326 OF 1.997. UNIVERSITY OF Dful E.S SALAAM· 000000000000 PLAIN'rIFF Versus SHiLL AND BP T'ANZANIA LIMITED OooeoOOOOQ DE:FENDi-lNT • J· U D G N EN T CHIPGTi\, Jo : " The plaintiff in this suit, University of Dar Es Salaam, is .... suing the defendants, ., Shell and BP Tanzania Limited, now known as .BP Tanzania Limited, for the following reliefs, namely, (a) removal of the defend,mts 9 fuel tanks and pumps from tqe plaintiff's fuel ~service station known as Mlimani Servi•ce Station;· (b) hand--over ~f } . the· Service Station by the defendants to ··the plaintiff; (c) payment of general damages by the defendants to t~E:· pl_a:i.ntiff; (d) interest l-- -; and ,costs•o The defendants disputed ·the claim and filed a counter-claim . I • for the £oll-0wing reliefs, namely, (a) general damages, (b) an order t_hat -the ·previous Agreement be. ,rcneyJed for a term of 25 years, and (c) co_sts .and interest. At the -commencement of the trial, the follm·1ing issues were agreed upon by the parties and recorded by the C,.1urt: ... .. ... ( 1) . Wh8ther the plaintiff is enfitled. to vacant possession of the S'c.iit premises. (2) WhJther the plaintiff has suffered,loss and damages. , . - 2 - (3) · Whether the plaintiff is in breach of the lease .J contract/a~reemento (4) \vhether the defenda.nt is entitled to loss and damages. (5) 1'o what reliefs are the parties or any of them ·· en·titled? The plain tiff's evidence, as testified by Jonathan Magezi Rvijage (P.W.1), who is. an officer in the plaintiff's Chief Administrative Officer's office, and Damian Phillip Kisaka (P.W.2), who-is a marketing ma.YJ.ager with. 'l'OT/l.L (T) Limited, is to the following effe-ct: by an agreement between the parties effective 1st February, 1972, the defendants were to build a service station on the plaintiff's piece of land measuring 3,694.2 square metres at a cost of Shs. 231,000/=. Thereeftcr the defendants were to run the Service Station for a period of 25.yeaxs without paying rent to the·plaintiff. 'I'he Agreement, which was tendered as Exhibit P.1, was to expire on 31st January, 1997. The defendants constructed the service station, now known as Mlimani ,· Service Station (hereinafter simply refrred to as the Service Station), as p;.;r the Agreement. Prior to the expiry of the Agreement, there were some negotiations between tbe parties over possibl_e rcne~al of the Agreement. But these n8$otiations fo.iled because the terms proposed by tlw defendants were found by the plaintiff as not beneficial to it. Just.before the expiry date, the plaintiff called for tei,ders for ' the lease of the Service Station and a shop which is within the same premises of the Service Stationo The Tender was advertised in at least two Newspapers, among them being ,;Sunday News•. and •·Nipashe,· on 12th January, 1997 and 11th January, 1997_,·respectively. The t~n..i.ered were required to file their tenders or offers to the Chief Administrative Officer and to re 3.ch him not later than 27th J~uary, 1997. . 1. Several oil companies submitted their _bids, .amon~ whom were the d~fendants, TO;I'AL (T) Limited, and G!!POIL. Meanwhile it was agreed between the parties that after the date of expiry of the Agreement, that is, 31st January, 1997, the.defendants would be running the :3ervice St.:::.tion on a temporary basis at a monthly rent 3 of Shs. 500,000/= pending the award of the '.1.\rnder to a successful tenderer. T'ne defendants were paying that rent during the period. Between 25th February and 4th March, 1997, the plaintiff's Tender Board sat and considered the tenders~ After considering advantages and disadvantages of the various tenders, the Tender Board awar'cted the Tender to TOTAL ·(T) Limited According to P.W.1, in deciding to award the Tender to ·rO'l'AL (T) Limited, the plaintiff's Tender Board took into account the the following factors, namely, (a) TOTAL (T) Limited offered to pay advance rent for five years as opposed to the defendants' offer of two y0ars, (b) TOTAL (T) Limit8d offered to renovate the Service Station to modern standards, (c) TOTAL (T) Limited would, at the expiry of the lease agreement, leave its properti2s at the Service Station so that they become the property of the plaintiff, as opposed to the defendants' offer that at the expiry of the lease agreement they would remove their properties worth Shs. 155,000,000/=; and (d) that durin'g the 25 years when the defendants had been running the Service Station, their Services were unsatisfactory • . . After award of the Tender to_ 'l'OTJi.L (1I') Limited, th8 plaintiff wrote ---- a letter (Exhibit P.5) to<tha defendants informing them that their tender . . had not been successful and so should arrange to hand over the Service Station to the plaintiff within one month effective from 1st October, ·1997. Meanwhile the ·plaintiff and TOTAL (T) Limited, entered into a lease agreement whereby the latter, as th0 successful tenderer, were to run the Service Station. In reply to Exhibit P.5, the defendants wrote a letter (Ex.¾ibit P.6) by which the defendants refused to vac3.te the suit premises arguing that they had a legal right to their occupation of the suit premises in terms of the Agreement of 1st Februill'y, 1972 between them and the plaintiff. The plaintiff responded by its letter or' 29th September, 1997 (Exhibit P.7) by which the plaintiff insisted that the defendants had to hand over the Service Station to the plaintiff as the legal owner. The plaintiff added, that it would not accept any rent from the defendants after 30th of September, 1997. By another letter (Exhibit P.8) a cheque ir~wri. by the defenda.11.ts for Shs. 500,000/= in favour of the plaintiff as rent for .. the Service Station for the month of October, 1997 was returned to the 4 defendants. The plaintiff insisted in that letter that the defendants should vacate the Service Station and hand it over to the plaintiff ..; within one month effective from 1st October, 1997. Thereafter the defendants filed an application in Dar Es Salaam Housing Tribunal which was eventually dismissed, and so the plaintiff took over the premises by locking them up without disturbing locks and properties of the defendants. The plaintiff then ·filed this suit. During the pendency of this suit, the defendants filed an application for a temporary injunction to restr.:,in the' plaintiff from evicting the defendants from ;the suit premises pending disposal of the main suit. This Court (Kileo, J.) granted the application on 10th March, 1998 on condition that the temporary injunction would last four months and that -, .I during that period the defendants would be paying monthly rent to the plaintiff on terms of the defendants 1 tender. An applicotion by the plaintiff to the Court of App0al for stay of execution of the temporary injuoction pending appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 10th June,. 1998, and it direct2d that the order of temporary injunction be adhered to strictly. On the defendants I counter-claim, P .W .1 testified that the defendants had no right to run the Service Station after the Agreement had expired because the Service Station was the f)roperty of the plaintiff, .and that none of the defendants I pro1Jarties were d::llilaged when the plaintiff locked _up the suit premises. On the basis of the foregoing evidence, the plaintiff prayed for judgment as claimed in the plaint and dismissal of the counter-claim with costs. 'l'he ds;fenda.nts' evidence was that of Julius Zimbiha (D.tJ.1") who is the defendants' Manager - Engineering SerViGes. He t(stifi0d that as per the Agreement between the parties signed in 1980, the defendants built, equipped and were running th0 Service Station. It cost th;; defendants Shs. 2)1,000/=•t9 build and equip it. By the terms of the Agreement, the defendants were to run the Service Station for a period of 25 years without paying rent to _the plaintiff,. and the said Agreement was to expire on 30th January, 1997, at which expiry the Service Station was to be the property of the_ +Jlaintiff. The suit premises included a shop which, at one 5 sta~e, the plaintiff rented to a third pc:trty in contravention of the Agreement. On 30th .August, 1996, the defendants wrote a letter (Exhib,i.t D,i1) to the plaintiff informing the plaintiff that the defendants were desirous of obtaining a renewal of the lease agreement as per Clause 5 (c) of the Agreement and that the defendants were planning to modernize the Servic~ Station at an estimated cost of two hundred million shillings. Despite D.W.1 1 s efforts in following up with the plaintiff's authorities on the matter, the plaintiff did not reply to that letter. In January, 1997 the defendants saw a Tender Notice in the Newspapers whereby the plaintiff was inviting.tenders for the running of the Service Station. This surprised the defendc.mts because they had already asked for a renewal of the lease Agreement. BL1t because they had no option, the defe-- ndants tendered while reminding the plaintiff of Clause 5 (c) of the Agreement, D.W. 1 added that the def0ndants 1 tender was without prejudice. D;'f! .1 went on to testify that the defendants' tend0r had by far more advantages to the plaintiff than the tender of TOTAL (T) Limited, in terms of money, facilities that would have been installed, and protection of the environment$ He denied a suggestion that the defendants• tender was deliberately inflated. It was the defend;:mts' contention that they suffered loss and damage because of the non ...use of the shop, denial to modernize the Service Station for the mutual benefit of the parties, loss of use of it for another 25 years, ;mcl loss occasioned to their op.Jrator of the Service Station when the plaintiff closed the service station for three months from 28th February, 1998. The defendants accordingly prayed for dismissal of the suit and judgment in their favour as prayed in the counter-claim. With tho consent of the Court, the learned advocates of the parties filed written submissions. I have carefully perused and considered those submissions in the light of the oral and docum<0ntG.ry evidence on record. I do not propose to reproduce them but will refer to ti1em in the course of this judgment. I find it convinient to start with the third issue, which is whether the plaintiff is in breach of the lease Agreement. From the evidence on record, as conceded by D.\v .1 in cross-examination, it is apparent that the parties had been discussing possible renewal of the lease Agreement or negotiating over a possible new agreement as far back as 1994. Those negotiations culminated in the defendants' letter tendered as :Exhibit D.1. The parties are. at issue as to the interpretation of the Agreem:mt. The defendants contend that by Clause 5(c) of the Agreement, renewal for another 25 years was already agreed, leaving only terms and other covenants to be sorted out, nnd so they i.11ere entitled to ren2wal of the lease Agreement under th~J..,flUSe. The plaintiff argues' on the other hand that under Clauses -..........;.,E,{'eement, there were 'conditions, covenants and other 2 and 5(c) of the . ·--... provisions to be agreed upon by the parties, and since there was no agreement between the ji'~ties ~n such conditioris,' covenants Md other provisions at the time of the expiration of the 1~greement, there was no breach of the Agreement on the part of the plaintiff because rs-newal could not be effected in the absence of agreement on those matters. It seems to me that in order to arrive at a correct interpretation of the Agreement, it must be looked at as a whole and not to pick out Clauses ·.in isolation. It appears to me that three Clauses in that Agreement contair, clues on this question. These are Clauses 2, 3 (g), and 5 (c). Clause 2 of the Agreement reads as follows: df\.t the expiration of the period of 25 years, the parties hereto may 8.gree to permit Shs:li to continue to operate the Station on such terms an3 conditions as the parties may decide''. Clause 3 (g) provides as follows: "3. Shell hereby undertakes to observe the following obligations: ' ••o•ooooooo••oooe••ooeooo•••oooooooooeoooooooooo oooooooooooeo6oeooo0oe•ooeoo•oooooooc,ooooooooooo oo••••00Doooo~o•io•4•'oooc>oooooooooooooooooooooo (g) To yield up the p~emises with fixtures and fittings and additions thereto (Shell's fixtu~es only excepted) at the expiration or determination of the said term in good and substantial repair condition fair wear 7 and tear excepted; the University 1 s fixtures, fitting and appurtenances b2ing cluly replaced) in accordance with the several covenants hereinbefore contained';. Clause 5(c) provides as follows: 1 ' 5(c) If Shell shall at the ei:piration of the term hereby granted be desirous of obtaining a further term of occupation of the St&tion and shall signify such desire by notice in writing delivered to the University three caLmder months at lec:;.st before expiration of the term hereby granted and if Shell shall at all times during the term hereby granted have duly performed and observed all the covena.nts and conditions herein contained or implied and on its part to be performed and observed then the University will on or before the expiration of the term hereby granted at the request and cost of Shell grant to Shell a lea.se of the Station for a further term of twenty five (25) years to commence at the expiration of the term hereby granted at th~ co,;·enants and provisions to be agreed at the time' 1 o The total effect of these and other provisions of the Agreement (such as Clause 5 (a), it is cl0ar.to me, is that at the expiration of the agreed term or on the determination of the Agreement the parties might agree that the defendMts be permitted by the plaintiff to continue to operate the Service Station on such terms and conditions as th0 parties might decide (as per clause 2 of the A.greem,:mt), or to renew the lease for another twenty-five years on covenants and provisions to be agreed upon by the parties at the time (as p0r Clause 5(c). In the event of any of the foregoing not coming to·fruition, then the defendants were to yidd up the Service Station as per Clauses 3 (g) and 5(a) of the Agreement. I do not see anything in the Agreement committing the plaintiff, without any condition, to renewing the Agreement for another twenty ..five years. lmy renewal or new agreement was subject to agreement between the parties as to terms and conditions or covenants and provisions. 8 i From the evidence of P.Wo1 and D.W.1, it is evident that there were contacts between the parties about renewal or entering into a new agreement between the particso It is equally evident from the evidence of -th~se two witnesses that the plaintiff was less than lukewarm about it. The total effect of the evidence 9 there,fore ~ is that by the time the Agreement expired, the psrties had not reached rmy agreement at all about renewing the Agreement or entering into a new one on ;;terms and conditions" or ' 1covenants and provisions,i referred- to in the Jtgreement. That being the situ2,tion, and as owners of the suit premises, the plaintiff was at liberty to deal with those premises as it thought fit. Indeed, the plaintiff was 9 even at that point, free to demand vacant possession under Clause 3(g) of the Agreement. Instead, the plaintiff opted to float a tender for the lease of the Service Station. The plaintiff also permitted the defendants to continue' running the Service Station on a temporary basis pending award of the tender. On their part the defendants did send their bid for the Tender which, they claim, was without prejudice. In the end the plaintiff's Tender Board short-listed the defendants and TOT.U, (T) Limited. From the foregoing, it is not reasonable to say that the plaintiff I was in breach of the Agreement. The parties had failed to agree on'. terms and conditions and so, on the expiration of the Agreement, there was nothing binding the parties. The case of Beesley v. HoJ.lwood, ( 1960) 1 vJLR 549, which was cited by learned counsel for the defendants, is not on all I I fours with the instant case because in the instant case the m,ore offer by thG defendruit was never intended to bind the plaintiff without more. It was an invitation or offer whose acceptc:1_nce depended on agreement between · the parties on terms and conditions in the absence of which there was nothing to bind the parties as to their future rel~tions. For these reasons, I resolve the third issue in the negative. I now turn to the first issue 1 which is whether the plaintiff is entitled to vacant poss"rnsion· of the suit premises. It is quite clear that the Agreement expired after running the full term before any new agreement was reached between the parties. Thereafter there 'i 9 was a temporary agreement between the porties whereby • the d!Jfendants were permitted to continue runn.ing the Service Station JJendin!,s_ award of the 'l1ender to a succe- ssfull bidder. Th3-t too expired on 30th September, 1997, or 30 d.'.lys 2:,fter 1st October, 1997. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the defendants that the defendants I tender w,,s to be treated Cl./3 being ;·without prejudice to the right to a renewal of the leo.se for 25 years... I have cc1refully perused the defendants' tender docrn1"i':::nts. P:ll'ae;raph 1 of their tender is devoted to p3.2t performance by the defendants, iflt$nded repl.'.lcement of facilities at the Service Station, and their desire for .q renew.,;tl for a term of not less than 10 years. It is, in fa.ct, 0- preamble. Paragr:1ph 2 deals with the def1;;ndants 1 intended Inv0st1:1ent Plan. Par0.gr3.ph 3 makes an offer of rent, ond it is the pnrD.graph which contains the phr.e_se ,:without ;)rejudice to the gener::i.li ty of the foregoing·. In my view, that phrase clearly refers to fiaragraphs 1 and 2 of their tender and no more. It i.s true ti,at Par3graph 3 (b) refers to cle.use 5 (c) of the Agree:rient nnd the fact the,t the defendants h.s.d indic2:ted their interest of rernCJwing the t~gree1nent. Then the defend,.:,.nts added: ·•He trust that our p3st reL,,ti.-:uship and the terms of the existing ::-_greernent will _be tal{~n in~C_?_COnsi~er::i.tion by the iJni versi.!r when consi~~l;~ _our off.££' (Emphasis supplied.) This cle 0;rly shows th.r:tt the d0fond:w._tsi offer was an offer with no question of ilwithout 1jre,judice': or -::1.n indication of withdrawcl of the t~nder. The question of withdrawal is further negatived by the, fact that, like other bidders, the defendents were willing to discuss Md clarify 9Jly aspects of their offer, and they ac tuc.lly did so when th.:::y were visited by the })laintiff I s team which was ass2ssing the vBrious tenders. ,.i l • I I In my viow, tho.t is not thoco:ip.du.ct of' o. paxty who was bidding•."without projudice" or 1-rho ],,,,.d withdxmm his .... 1)id. , In short, I find as fact thst tho defendants' bid . or • tonde.r was n. firm ono and was .·novor withdrmmo Tho plaintiff, thor0foro, ri3htly considered it n.long with the rest of the tcnderso The question of tho 1".ilirnani shop appcu·s to me to be almost a side issuoo · It wD.s not full;y disclosed as to how or to what extent the "shop" r:ffocted ruzy of the pa.rtiose On the contrn.I"J, the q_uGstion of tho ., shop did not adversely affGct tho relationship between tho J.)<!.Tties which, according toth::i defondnnts remained corclirJ. 0 Indocd 9 it was not even mentioned in the ,.,/>t.,i'OCl!lent. Be that ns it may, it is said that tho question of tem1,"lcy oftho shop has since been detcr- ;f aiined by a competent tribunal.·'. I On the question as to which offer 9 between thut of the ' defend.nnts nnd that of TOT.PL ('11) LTD, I think that it all I depended on the priorities of tho owner of tho p:t'operty, and its assessmont of tho offers. The Plaintiff nppem-s to have been attracted by TO'l1.,.U.,iS :fin:::nciol offo:r~ the period of timoj tho properties Tar.AL (T) LTD w,:;.s willi1ig to leave behind, and the past performance of the dofondc,.nts over the yoo:rs. It mny well be that the 11laintiff rnisinter1)rottod tho two ., I offers.· It mey be that tho defendants offer WO,S the bettor of tho two offorse But o.t tho end of the d~, it wn.s for the plaintiff to choose. In tho oncl tho pl;:::,intiff opted for TOTAL (T) LTD., al1d gave reasons for doing ao., Thon of course, there was a clause in the tender which cl0arly stated that the plaintiff was not bound. to o,cccpt the highest or any tender. • Tho choice was tho,t of the plaintiff and not that of any of the bidders. That being the position, and tho~c being no lease n,grocmcnt I between tho pru;-ties, it follows tlmt hl10 plaintiff i~ entitled to vacant possession of tho suit premises._ Tho first issue is accordingly resolved. in tho n.ffirmativeo «>., ... /11. : I I' ... . J. 11 I noxt turn to thofourth issue, which is wh0thcr the do- fendants o.rc entitled to loss and damageso A lot of • rolimco has been placed ~by the dofcndo...n.ts on the provisions of Clause 5 (c) of the J:.g;r00L1C1TG and Ex:hil)i t Del I have, I think sufficiently dealt with the . ' l)rovisions of the Agrecmcntll As for TuhilJit Dal it appcc..i:-D to mo that ·to all intents ::md r,1.,1.rposos, that document D.rilOi.mted to no mo3'.'o than an imritation to trco.to .Tnkon at its h.i3host, it wo.s only .on offer. It is olomonto..ry law thc..t in.order to constitute a valid contract, there must be an offer, o.n accopto.nco, considorn..tion, and w.:htontion croo.te local relations. In this case$ EY.b.ibit D.,i wo.s, at best, an offer to which there wns no uccopto.ncc. Nr::.turally, there was no consideration. There was, therefore, no breach of contro.ct by tho plt.±.n:tfff boco.use tho:co ,·rc,s no contrr,ct to be breached when the .Agreement eJq>irod. On the question of closure ofthe service be stc:tion, it shoiu.q/ro~_lizod that aft01... the o.xpir.>7 of the ~"Teomcnt there was no lensc agreement between tho pnrtios. The defendants, therofo1.. e 9 hc'.d no riesht to oontinue running tho sorvico str.tion or to occupy it 2.t thc.t point in timco I cannot, thoroforo soo how the dofenctc.nts can be sn.id to be cnti tled to d:,me,gos c.s n rcsul t of tllo closurco Fo1~ thoso reasons, I resolve tho fou:dh issue in tho nco.1,tivc• The :next issue I wn.nt to deal with is tho second is.sue, ·whic~1 wn.s whether the pl11intiff hr-£ suffcr0d loss and damn,t;cs. ~he llo{sTOoment expired. on or r.,1.Jout 31st J r.nuary, 1997. Tho tempornry ag-..ceGI!lont ·was terminated some 30 days after 1st October, 1997. But tho defendants refused to VRcn.te tho suit r~emisos claimi:--ig that they hn,d a legal right to 1~emn.in in tho suit :premises. Ii:i my view,. betwe0n . tho end of Octo bar, 1997. cJ1d 10th 1qn,rch, 1998, that is, tho dn.to when this oourt (Kileo, J) granted a tcrnporru:y- injunction, tllc dcfcncJ.o.nts had no right to run.or bo 2.t the service _stntion, . 12 ♦ c,nd tho plcintiff wns uno.blo to tclrn o.nd US(, it for tl"..ou1solvos bocnusc thoy were pr·ovcntocl by tho dcf(mdo11ts.; Tho tom:pora.ry injunction of 10th Mo.rch, 1998 expired on or ,, -~ ... nnout 9th July, 1998.' During oll these fom, nonths, tLlo dofonclmts rnc1do no p~1.ymo:nt· dospi t? tho clo,::,:c ordorG ,of this . court rt.'1.d tho Court of A1?poc;.l. ThJ.t torn:uo.:i:•,:.r;;, injunot ion w.:~s not ox.tended nndthe d,1f or:il.ontsa,ro still rur,ning the ·r sor:ioo sk.tion.- Lill this tii:10 tho plc.inti:ff' irecs roa.dy to tuko :possession of tho sorvico stn,tion so tho,t tho successful biddoi' mo.y bo h,'J..ndcd over. Quito clcr:rly, thorof o:co, the plr~intiff hns suf:foxod loss nnd dr;.mo,gos .. On 'bho basis of the fo:cci;oir~G, I :resolve tl10 second iflzuc in the posi tivo. !It Finally, I turn to tb.o fifth o.ml l~:.st isquc which iG: t.o rrb.c,t roliof ro'G tho pa.rti0s or cJJG. of tl1cm anti tlod? To stc,xt with, in viow of the :-,bovo f inclines, I find no mori t in the dcfcnd.,'.:'n-tf! coi.:::ntor~ clo.imc, Tho son,3 is h0ro b;)' dismiscocl with costs. On tl10 :::2.sis of my findings on tho issues :i:'1:,'r.1ocL, I run sr..tisfiocl tk:t tho plaintiff has _proved its 'Ct,so on c, blD.i.,co of 11ro'babiliti0s 0 Tho pln.inti:ff is entHlod to Ve.cant poss0ssion of tho suit 11romisc~s 2,11.cJ_ conorcll .. In auscssing gonori7l do.mr.ieos, I , not rn-;ru.ro of 2.ITI c.ny rulo o.s to how the same nhovJ.d be done. It all dcponcln on 0auy fr::.ctors, such 2.S tho nc.tux-o of tho dcmt,.:.:o, tllo pa:!:'tios involvod 9 tho poriocl ovGr vhich such dr::,;nz-,gc wns suffered, 3nd so on. L'1 some c.:-.ses, it covld be drnost o.rbi trE'.ry in the v.l·sono(:: of · i;racedent. :Dut there is ,2uthority for tllo pocHi.on that cho,.'l'lc;os i~ tho vd v.0 of u!Ol1'3Y must bo t ,:>ken into "1.1GOOl1nt (soc .3nnds V. D,:f/811 (1945)3.C 380 ,1t j?• 381). In tho instG.11t c~,se, I hcvo token into c1oco1..mt whd tho plo,intiff wauld hn.vo rccoiv0d as rent for tho premises from tho end of 0ctobor,1997 to cdeto, timo los-t for tho prorosocl clov3lopmont of tho oui t premises, the c<mo:rGl incorr-1i11i<moc sufforocl. by tho plaintiff a.v..1::ii1J tho .:relovnnt 1-,oriod, and the chringos of tho voJ.ue of r.101;.oy ovor that· p:ar·iod. f accordingly assess general d2Ini:\JC.S at fifty million shillings (shs. ~0 1 000,000/-). . 13 In sum, I ho:ro'by onto:c judgement fo:,:: tho pldntiff cs 11r£W0d in pa:rncraph 12 (c) of the l)laint, conorcl c:.r:mugcs cssesscd 2..t fifty milli;:>n sb.iJ.linss, into:-;.'oDt 2.t 2C,fo per rxmum, with cost·s 1rhich shall be JUDGE 9/8/99 Jud0omcnt delivered in court this 9th clcy of 1-ugu::it, 1999•· For Pl2i;.1tiffi .Absent For Defcnd~nts Absent.