20170522 TZHC Dar es Salaam

IN THE HI<;H COURT OF TANZANIA

AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL CASE NO. 1 OF 2008 VO LUSTIN E. TES,H.A.... ■ ••••••• ■ ••••• ■ ••••••••••• ■■ .I •••••• ■ • • • • • • • • PLAINTIFF

VERSUS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. ............................... 1 ST DEFENDANT DIRECTO.R -. - GENERAL, PREVENTION AND . COMBANTING ~ · • · · ND OF CORRUPTION BUREAU ............ .; .. ;. ... ,. ........... 2 DEFENDANT Date of last Order .. 25/4/2017 · bate qf ·. Judgment . ~ . . .__ ~, · :- 22/5/2017 - ·.JUDGMENT- . Kitusi, J~ . -~ ·: ·.,• . At . ·,_ • the . _. .-time . of""~ filing •·· . .; ' . this· suit, f about ten years ,~ago, . the plainttff . f. Voiµstin . . . ' E. .,.,Tesha was~ residing .,· "/ . and working in Bagamoyo- at the District nd CO~l)cil, an~. _was-z li'{ing in :a, rented ~ouse. O~ _2 September, 2007 his . · ' _ V • • 0 ' ... .j-1 • • ~ • • ~ • _~ar:,pl ord' informed· hii;n .that there were officers from the office of t \ ,. . ii,,,. : ·•. • " • .;, . . ... 1 ,. ..I. . . • . . -- : ·. • . ~ •• . ' ,. ... , Pce.vention ~md C.omgating of Corrupt.id_n Bureau, hereinafter PCCB, in the i.' 4~ . .... ; . . -. . 9 " - .. .. ! ob ~. . 11! ~ . _ . hQLi§~· Jhe"'plaintiff,.pJ1'oceedeo int~ the house to 1mee;:t9e said office~s · ~ t ...,..- ': , ., . _ • I· •• ~ . .,_ •· _. . ·,.,_ \ .: •. • ~ . ' •. ., • ~ . • • ~ ' • •.· .• •~ . _, .· ~V'iP~, .hovy.ev~r _told \him. th~y were :only interested . iJl · searching the, ... ~:..•• ~~•.: ~••~~ ~ f:.;t•_ ~- lo-.•,~:~~ T.,.:. -~. • • ·- ~ •• ••• ...l~ ••: ... ,,• ~ O .f ~""·-= , d:;.~ i c• .... t .i' •, · t:.~.lid_tord's"'"n9us~·

in e,xclU~i9n 9f his _(Plaintiff's) part used for residence and· ~ ·-~~ . " .~ . -:,- • V •, - ~ - ~-. . . office. Plaintiff left. . ' . -- , · f· • 1 The officers of PCC:13. tur_n~~Lup at the house ag_~in _on 3 rd _Sep~em_ber, 2007, this time around, broke into his room and took away the following: (i) 10,000 United states dollars. (ii) One mobile phone handset. (iii) One hand GPS - to 232 - LEICA. (iv) One PGS 3 GEMINI. (v) One Roll of Drawing paper (cepia). (vi) One Roll of Ammonium Printing ·paper. (vii) Sjx letters of offer with case-Tsh?, 179,000/=. (viii} .. One T-Square. (ix)· One sea le rulers. (x) Survey plans TP tjrawings. ·. . (~i}· . Orie set qf drawing pens (Rotrin) , ~~ . :·;-· i:.:1 •·"."" ._-~{xi})-:· . - . ' ,. Survey dat~ ·(Field observation~s). . .. -~ ~ ... ' ...... --4 .. • - . ·, .~(*~ii};~- . Valuables:~nd· receipts. • • ! ' , . ........ _ ... ,. ~ ,i_"".:' :: . ; . _. . . . . . . .. "!' ·~ .. ""~- ~ - -- . ; . . J_t· i_s_ the plaintiffis~ca~e that the act of these officers was _unjustified and . - "J ~ ~ ~.. - -~ • .• -J...,. ' - ' ~- ~ • ._. • r ~ ~ • • ,. 1 •• :l mc1l!~ioysly-done wi.~~~t~e.: view :.?f depriyi~g him use of thf~.e ~ools without . - ' .•. -. . . . ,. • • • 1( - ,~ a court order .. The· plaintiff. who described himself as a Senior Land ;~ 1. •· . _.i;: .. . • ~ ~ . ·➔ ;_ . ~l ~ • .. ._: .. .. - ~ • .. " .r · -~~~:~·~~r ap~g.e,d ·:

t~~Ii?~_izur~/~f t_he rnention·e9 tool? ~Y those_. office!s --... ,, . "" .... • . • -? •. 1 , ·. r.~·:, .r~~~~\~d~_hj[ll)~cap~~!.~~pf,P~r.for~il'}~ his ~~:mt~actual ,o?lig~~i~~s.r.~lated to ,-~i.1iS'iys _a·nd thus,t~~~§lllg hirt,:'"s_erious·· l0$,S in eeor)omy ·-and professi9nar. ~~:~ . .- ' ~ .. .• .. ~ "i. .. - .. ~ • . ~ t. 'J,." M- ~· ,I; . ' .. ' "' "' ~- ,; 1 .. • .. - .. ... • • "' .• ·... ' .J.t":~ . '., . '·\, .,__ • - ' ' . • • ' . . .. • .,, _:: ,F?lamt_1ffsr: aJlegi,itio_ttthat th.Ef s~arch was ill~g 91 i.s preniisecl qn - -::r : ·J:,reg"ut~ti6n. ..:i-~1'?i } .: . _,:~r ''.l-t'·J).f.t'i'r ~ - l(i t.. ~- ~.~. • ... • /~{~~ '. .' : ~-~~-l~,(~~tl}~ajl~g~ti.on!~haJ~\~~ ' ♦ J' ,,, \1·J.·1~~f!:~"".""':vty '-. . ' <• ~ •~~ • I .... • ·_t ~ • t-. ~ pr f witr)essed~ ·wi,tb0ut 1a-.warra~_t · ~ ":! / 1by~ a0:au~horized ._ • ;-t~-;::; . •,~ -L~ ~ - - - ~ ' • • ~ r./! . . .;_ -:~f:..., ~- • -~~,• ~ ,.. .:..f.~- • .• +.' • l ¢ •. . - · • r ... ~ f ., 9 • . ~ ► • ; 't r "9 !., .rJ .: j J.Q~.~J J~a_q~r; J ~~-,; ~~{ •. . . :- .i 'i~(:· . ,i:~i-:~{:~.\; ~,--:-~/~·, \:~;s{i ~~c\{~ ,r,' ·~ • " - r...._ ~ •e•t·•• ,Ji~•}·_: . . :-_' '.=~----~: ;_,·: - ... ~.- l \:•,•~ - ' •4 7._.,.. It· - i --; . ,;--- - t,. f : • ~ _: .....- ~ : ·~ + ;'.\+ 't,.-~ .. - . !. . ' - j_ • -~- _...,_ ·:...__ -~- - .. .;. -· •• · • - ·-·." . The plaintiff decided to institute this action against the Attorney

General being the principal legal advisor to the government, and the Director General of PCCB as the employer of the officers who perpetrated the said illegal act, as first and second defendant respectively. He has asked the court for four substantive reliefs, that is, (i) A declaration that the breaking into his room and office by the second defendant's officers in his absence was illegal and unjustified, (ii) An order that the defendant pays the plaintiff the sum of 10,000 US dollars unlawfully seized from his possessio~, (iii) An orde~ compelling the 2nd defendant to return to the . . plaintiff all the survey Tools . and devices . seized during the illegal ·entry. : _ -"'·:, (vi) An -·order to the defendants to pay to the .plaintiff a· total of Shs. 200,000,000/= qeing damages for unlawfully holding the su[Vey tools and devices.. . Then-the plaintiff prays for other related reliefs. The first is interest at ·· com-;;;ercial . rate~- of -· 24°/o: ~-n the. 10,000 US dollars from· .3 September, .: rd . 2007 · when the· same- was ·confiscated -until it is recovered. Secondly is . . . ;"' -·~=,:•··'"'' ::,' ~ , !t'~- interest '• . on . the:decretat,arnount · . . . _;_. _. at . the COUit 1: _ rate of 11 % . from. the ·date of 6 · . · . " judgment until payment in full.. Lastly the plaintiff prays for costs and the usuat ~ny other reli~f(s) deemedJit by th~ court. J , ·.- ,,- • • '

\", .. .. .. Four issues were.pt9posed ~and, I think, adopted by the court "'{hen ' ~ . . : ' trial" commenced befbreJhy sister Aboud Judge. These arei. ·. f' if ' • ~·- .. : .~-; · ..ii Wnet~~r t!Je 9efendan~ts ·~. . •:;" f'., ~. · ertered th:~·p\aintiff:'r_room ·and conducted a ~t ;:'.· • . . ;_ ' . ~ .·{ _,t \ ~ • :.•, . -;_· -._·_ .'. ,.. ~·_, ~ 1•, !~I, . • ,, . . · ;· : _'. ,'.< ,, '.; :. search. .. . · 2~ Whether the Defendant;s . . •.· . act was lawful. ·~ ' . ,. .' 3 ' ,· :..

3. Whether the plaintiff was deprived of his right to ownership and possession of his properties.

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation and repossession of his properties. During the prosecution of this case by the Plaintiff (PWl) it turned out that Devotha Edward Mkali (PW3) was the plaintiff's landlady and that she is the one who called him on 3/9/2007 to inform him that some officers .. from the PCCB were at the _house with the view of searching his office. PW1 ·went to PW3!s house where ~e ~as renting two rooms; or1e for office ·and another as a store. . .. • .. -- ... i,,, • - Having introdu,ced himself as the owner of the two rooms, PWl wanted .to be .ih1ere_ during the intended. ,search but the-bfficers of the 2nd defendant '' told him. to leave at once·as he was not needed around. This was said in '°'..'. ... • - ~ ~ , -,rhe·. ~t~ie~-~~~ o_t:·-~.60~ · ~f-.:~~M~~funguo, who #hatl given PW_l a~ ride ·back to . -~ ~:• :- -.... - .::- ... ~~ . ., . ·!. ~-- . . ' ,. •. PW3's;house.- PWL had to. leave the area although he was the occupier of . _·.,! ~--~ ··~ ~~~ .. : .... ~;~_ .:~_ ~ . . th~ t0~~rioonis for, whic,b!.O~ said he. had cf1 v~~id lease agre~n:iept. This fact .. __ ~as:~~~pqrted~ py ·P,Y'(~]1~]7\~: ~e_ndered ~h~"~a!_d_· ·agreement ftS -Exhibit. P3 . ._Theafa~t-that-:rwi wa;: tfquired to leave the premises so that h~ does not _)i~:~· ~ ~ ~ -~=- 't .: ~/:i. ' . ._ " '., . ,. # • ~ ' • • •• ~~a·5?9 ·wq·~ ~l~Q .?ugpqrted by ~W3. ,. >• ~; J I r,, a -;

~' 1 · •jNi~nf?_t;·ith~ • •• ,. • ~. , •. , l,.--.... if '"; . . ; "'\ ♦ Jfere· 91.;1ring.the ~~9rch but ~~e co~ld. not t~II h<;>w • ....... .+,. - ,i .. • f • • - - • -~ ·: .::-:- ~;.jt~/3;:pw3.-~~o-w¼as . _.._._, -- ...... f ... , .... . ... -t ,It. r-'" ;.. • t. ;::/ -the~bffiters~o(P.~cs''rg,?'jfl~d ·~ntry.ioto the~ rooms. :~qr could she tell what _ .t- ,, ,;~_}l.z }:.. J~ • ~ .. . . ~•~-tjJ!···;\ ~" -~. • t ~: .. · • ? ~ ~ • .. • ·.· 1) hey·f_tp,9K lw_it~i-theri'hlforrt: the rpom bat::·she rec.ailed se~[ngr them load F, .- ~J~.;Jl, ;.~t.1 . ~>: .,JJ , ..} . . . ' . . . i · -~-:~f"'t,!.• . .i_ .;Jq;,·lli:..;·;-~-;.., • .. •· • ;.. : · · ·: tnfrigs'~iffbigj:!hveldps"\n10Jbags/" · '~ :, ~ Ii'·-~ • . -~ :~:,:-.· , . , t , ., ·~.~ ~ :,. . :.~.-i•.·1~.-~~-<. -_·•.~ ~~-- -~'.-· :i~-j:~:~: - ·:•L:, . . ,:.: "" • . ..,l -. , - -::h/ . t.., 1•!_'• .t ·r }· .. • ... • .. <';;. . . ,. +- ..- ,1..,....r-J .t!/" J..,.... :· • .... • ... .:: • " ' .._ r_: • ·r· . . . -·~ ·._. . .,-~- .,. ' •t- ..., ,- 1 \ . ·. L , ' .. ~ ~,.,i.. ~; }:~ ~·~~ :. ~ /·f ~J,-~-i? r ..··: . .l . ,. • .'_ . ,. __1 : •. :-i . t . !", ·,:_~.. . .. r • : •• 'l' .. PW1 stated that he was using one of the rooms as a private office, him being a surveyor. He said he was doing survey, construction and town planning, during weekends and spare time. The store was the room in which he kept equipment for execution of those

works. He stated that during the search, the officers of PCCB took away the following items. Cash 10,000 dollars and 179,000/= shillings, printing and tracing papers for drawing,_ two GPS for surveying, a complete drawing set, a m9bile phone and land title deeds belonging to people who had contracted him. The officers of PCCB collected .and took away everything from PW1 's office including payment receipts. According to PWl's testhiiony. he wrote to PCCB, Bagamoyo to. demand return qf h_i?. equipment btJt they did not he~q. He also wrote ~he office of . . the Attorney.General . . . to,. __ qsk·him ... l .... ,.:._,:;... to direct PCCB to return his equipment but the two l~tters were not. re~ponded to._ Nor were the equipment.returned. ihe :leftJ-~ tb"i:he .Attcfrne·?~i;~n~ral w~s admitted as Exhibit Pl. He said that some·· of~ t~e documents. :s~fz~tf from his office h~ve been attached to the . " ~ -. J • ~ r • '"! · written statemen\ of defence. i,.• t •.• • .. PW1 .testified . on the ..consequences of' the seizure. First and most • • • ,- r~ ..... - t'., ~~. • f .. ' ... ~ .f" ,. ~ ·,. • ._ ,, h ..' . 'I; . • " ~ •• • 1 i(!Ypa<:;t~rJ~L- ':'1as : ~h~ inab!lit_Y7. to discharge_ .works YJhich . -h~- -· had been - • "- ., • • #' • f f ·" t-~~ntq:1~te91_to 20:, ~is. c~st?fersi r_a.is..ed c~mplai~t: which made ~i~ feel . emb·artcfs~ed __., ~-,... · - injJredf'S~condly, his fihqncial

flow. was affected as- .. c:i • ana· , ' - - .. '1, ' . ~. ......~J {-1' ' ; j • • • -. . • • .~ .. ' • ,..... ~- . a :- result;0f. which he had f0~t:$adjust his life _style. He cited tbe ~xample of the ~ ~ •• ~ .• T ..t· ~ T .: ~ . ~ ·:· . . . . . ~ '!.. : - . ~~=-~; ~\")fqr.~~~ tb~~~tj_Eme~n~~~ ?~.rt~~~-~ 9pll~rs. 10/9_qp .t~-a~ yvas,~ei~eB·ife te~tifjed •; , •• • : ' ..... • ' ' . :, ,. ;~: \ l'". ..• ./}hat\thJ~; mon~r:4liad Q~~-~~g:ve~ ·to. him by ~agamoyo Coa~t _!?evelopment ·' ,, '!-__:::for tn·e·~pu"rpose~of de~ignl~8~fahd·surveying plots of land. . -., • ~ .. ·... J -. ~ •·- . 't ~ ~· \t...:._;.. l. .... ,_ ~-- ""~-:1-:t, • r".. r • • ' •,. . I • Plaintiff also cited the projects he referred to as Matunda Farm and Zinga both of which were stalled because of the deprival of the tools and equipment. Plaintiff went on to state that criminal charges of Disobeying lawful orders, Criminal Case No. 414 of 2008 were instituted by PCCB but they came to an end in 2009 by a finding that resulted in plaintiff being set free. Plaintiff prayed that the prayers in the plaint be granted by the court. Mr. Kameyo State Attorney who was acting for the defendant during the testimony of PWl cross-examined him on whether at the time of executing private contracts to survey pieces of land he. "'!as still an employee of Bagamoyo)?Jstrict Council-.-· .PWl's ~ response was that he was still

an employee .:-of the District .. .. . Council . and some of the assignments - ~ like the ' • .M~t~nd~:j=irm were from. hjs ~employer but proc:eed~ thereof were priyately . .. ·,-·.~i. ' .... ,. -~--.. ·,; ,:. . received~by. him. He~ concecled·to the fact that he.was not paying taxes for ... • - J ~ ,.. - :\_~,c ._ -,._ ..-.. , - . . those Ynco'rnes ·from those ventures. \ . ~.. . ~ ~ ":!! • . _::!le.~.,~·;_ i !:-.- ,· ...... ~ :; ... ~ _. :iJ:, . -♦ ~ ~ ... .. • -t.,, ;~ .. . .. ·: /\s~rf~~~f-~. ~roo! of oyvn9._?h~p- of the t~9!j _.l_ist~d .to. have b_;en seized, .. PW_l repif~d: that he had ·bo_ught all of them from shops but could not t t ! ~- ;.~ ,• ... ~ .:r.';: I._: •;. ~ " " ~ _.,. # '!" -, ,..;,•:,t,,,.__ • .,, ~ 4J ~f?dl!~E!,f*€i[its orany qqc~/Tlelits to prov~ b.ecauSe t~ey w~re ~ot tliere:' lt ,i ~rpss .'. :··.' exarni~~tl?ns'"°'of PWl ':{vaS adj9~rn.~d n:11~way Ot:) 1~~11/~010 4 •' ~-.:-· •. ,. . -.. ~\,~.... ~ If;~ '.. .. -,r- ' • : ~ w 9..np. it.r~0tild not resu~~·-until- on 1Q/12/20_1~ when Ms-Cre?e.Q~.ia Lubuva, - 1 • " t ·:~ -(- $ ... j" *11 • - . -~ .,_ • • '" tf . ,. ..... "'i, • ,. .. - • ~ ~ 1 • -~tate1&~if8~Y, h~9 now,.\~;~$p~ove~ the cas·~ •~Qr the defence.~--.;:_. r . , ~I: : '.-., f~ rlJJfl~ii:ii~~~,J~1liit1tcrok~~e~amiriit~ns, ~Y\i1' co~c;d\d. that -~s · ~- /· ·: ,:c;i1_. e~;i~y~~ >~~ iK~. 9QY~(6m~nt h~ was n6t author_ized t~ ru:n a private •. _:- ~-

..;;. ,t--~~:. '!,.: .t:·_._ :~:~;~ : . . · ~--:· _;· . . , '~ .. _·: _!,_ ~fr-~; .. . . J. • ., • • ~ l --r- A• .,_ ......... -;- ~ ':, it_ ~ :.t"" t 1 • • 6• t . t:· ••• (' J :: ,.,t .. , -~ • : ..; - ... _-= r..:- . .. t ;t 11 -: ~ . , \ ! ~ . .~ t : . - ·--··t" --.-'!"":r: . . -=- . , . . 1 .... 'Jffice of survey, as that would lead to conflict. of interests. He also conceded that his office was unregistered and there was no. sign board showing that there was an office at the location where it was. PWl's conclusion that the search was illegal was based on four factors which he named when being cross-examined by Ms Lubuva. He said it was illegal because he did not witness it and witnesses of his choice were not . permitted to· witness it, thirdly- no government leader from that street was involved as a witness. Lastly, PCCB officers did not have a search warrant. · Then answering to more· questions put to him, PWl said that the intention of_ P_CCB.._,officers wa·s to -search PW3's office but they ended up - • -- • - • -.g. • "" - . .. searching his, and - took away. his equipment. He mentioned . .,. . . the p·rices of . . y the equipment as follows: . . . ...· · - - (i), - ' Shs. 8 Million (ti) Shs. 3 Million -. (iii) ·t . •Mobile phone (N_b~fa) Shs. 500,000/= r . • ...; • . ~.;. ~• . (iv) •.:_ Tli'e roll of cepia·dJaWifl_g paper Shs. 45,000/~ ... "- - {vy ·· : ~A~aniu~.

printfng~p~peJ · _i- - . Shs. 45,000/= 4 '·' 11 (vi)b ~•·_!f•,7Rotrin:dy~~ing,pe[J:: · . Shs.- 40,000/:- . . ~ ~:1 (vii)' ,, ~:scale Rul~s ,. • • . . . - ~ ~ . . - ,. r . .... , ,.. . - : r:.:· ~ .. _..... - Shs~, 30,000( . Shs. ~Q ,000/ = ~ . ! .,. PW1 denied a suggestion put to him by the learned State Attorney that one Mr. Mohamed, PW3 and himself were using PW3's house· to keep government documents illegally and to issue unauthorized certificates of title, land offers and beacons. When re-examined by Mr. Living Kimaro counsel for the plaintiff, PW1 stated that his employment allowed him to engage in private ventures after working hours so as to supplement for the inadequate number of government surveyos. He said that the documents collected from his office were priyat~ documents not ·government documents, PWl also t9l9 the . . - ' _court that_ after receiving the call from PW3__ that his house was, being ' searched he went to the scene by_ using a motorcycle which, he was personally drivJ1:1g. ,. Evaristissa{:k Maf~nguro O~\Al2) testified that o~ 3/9/2007 he was with 'J • . · P'{\/1 _af Nic!{r-1j.ema. ar~a· wl'}ere···r-Wf was surveying a piece of land-for a • " r• ~ • • :.." t' ~ 7 •-.. :-:-- . ~. ~ 't • _ ' ..• . .,.._, . church on the.fr~ reques~. The P,hprie notifying PW_r ?)bout the search. at his ~ ·, •. t - .' office -. came: when PW2 • !lf'•i- .. ..,, ' was -.. with

him and PW2 '•drove . .ifl!:..,. ~: • • PW1 to the office on ll .. ~ • &, ti"~ ,:·· .· his r:1otorcyc,te. ~W2 s~pportec{pvy1's v~rsion on,. _th~_ fact that th~,e_!ficers of PCCB. did. ·hot . ·-•.!~: "t' .. permit PWl to be present durfng the search. PWl and e,:-.: . ;- '$ ... t..-~r,,-' .i • • .;- -~ .... .. • ·J _: ,4- ♦• : ... ... , PW~ lefttt!e•.~~ea· on PY')2's ~dvJc_e beca~se of fear .of brea5h· of the peac_:e: ·~ ~ ·: 4 ~ •"iii,. subit~efl:e· PW0 ·confir~~9 -p~i{s te,sti~or,v:/egaridi_Qg the _t~nancy,- . ' • •_ •. ~- . the searcb·Jnt~ his rcioms ~anp· ~Wl 's subsequ~11t~i.nformation to _·her as to .. , ► ; . ;7). :~~ ; - - . • ..... ~ •~At~- i " ...... ··. j"'. ,i .. .the·. ·e.~u. .... ip. lti'~. 11t§itl1a~ 'JV/ire ~eiz.~a _By the_second defen.·dant's o_ fficef?;; _. ~ & • "· ' • ,I .'~ ~ • C ~ • .i $ ~. • • :: '. .. ,. !. ,. ·•· .,_ . ;. :.. .1 • '" ,. .. : •. • ; '. s ,. . ,. i'· . . "" . ~· tt ,.· . . r. ~ i~ • j ✓ • • • iii • . ' • ~ ; . •• '. . . . ,, :. • , ~ ., , ';= . -: : . .• •· : "f . _ .. -{.. {. ; .• _~ _ __ "'° _, . .... J ~ · , . • . . •J ~I t •. . •1 !1 · 'f _. ·· · Tl)e pl1:iintiff closed·~ his .. ca~e on 11/12/2014 after which the' court .,,...,, -~-- :--.. . ·'\_..~)'.,' .~ . ~- #:; ;~- ..-~ ►•....;ie • ~-•-.. ~ . : · .. · ·, •'.· ordered the~ defenda(lfs-to·➔~Ptddu~~ all- witnes?es,..q_n .th~" .next d.aY,:. that is., • r . • · a .. _ ~ .. _· · ._ • .

"" .. . .... ' .·t 8 ~ ..... . :. I . :J ·7· th 12 December, 2014. That never happened because on 12th December . -· , 2014 Ms. Lubuva the rearned Attorney who had conduct of the case was reported to have been believed. Thereafter the case went through many adjournments for a whole year, until on 11th December, 2015. On- that date one Heavenlight Majure an investigator working for PCCB commenced the defence case. Heavenlight (DWl) stated that on 3rd September, 2007 she was among the officers of PCCB who conducted search at PW3's house. The search was proceeded -by a report that PWl was in possession of government . items used for surv·eying ·and la_nd. plannin·g which he was keeping at the ~ . house of PW3. :..~ ~ . ~ . . . ····The·'Offfcers.. obtairied a sear~h-warrant.(a certified ~~PY of whi~~ was : ~ ' . : . :· . . . ~ ..... :~ . . - :. . . . . . . : · ._. tendered as Exhibit Dl)_ and proc.eeded to PW3's· home, via a ten cell -~- ~- .. ·:; ' .. ,· . . ---=~---~ ,· .·_. - ·::. . '? . . -•:'.ii; leader kriown;~:f?~~abu MtupE:1¢--:':t.he latter recommended that another ten ,. : .L_ c~-11 leacfer k~owh as Mzee· Ally: Mtengwa be asked to take part also~_ and - . ~ . - .... -.; . this was don~;~:According to~-Qwi, the search was cqnducted. _in; the ~ . ._.,.:~. ~r~se_nce ~f~.b~teh.· ceU 1€ad~_~s~:Pw3· and ..her nic[the; wer~ the on1y~adult . . '- . .;~ 1 <; people·· at home, PW3

"havinQi: informed the PCCB .officers')that the other ,. ·.,.. "' ~ ~. . . . .. : . -· .; . ·• . - ' .: ~ - . ·. •· · occuJ>_ahts _bf the house;;wer~ her child_ren;who were at school at tnat•time. . . . . . · : i:' :_: ... · • a- ~ • '~ 'bVVi" Stqt~cFt~at i~,; {11g c-o~r,s~·:~f _,I j': , , th~ ~earch~ equipme•nts used for land~- ,,,: • ,, • .'· '.f ' - ' ' • ~ ' ; :-•!·. . • , ; ..:. • , .• - '" ' ' " :: :~;. ~arvt?y and :nfap.ping ;.• 'vy_~nf \.U.jL~over~d. · 7:1:)e ~e[tific~te of: seiz~re was ".;.~JJ*.. ·. . · .: .. _.i.' ,;~•:..;' - '•. ..;._.'";.-_;_' ·• . ••. _.-•· ,•.. ...,. ~ ~ .~1f{:}\t~9~~~~-~ ~9c~i~~dr~1~~·t:~aJ~:rJlP'.t . ~2r :~~e: :!1~t~er ~st~t~d- ·t~~i: t~e ' I ._ :~. equ1P,ment Y'J~(e identified. as._. belonging · to Bagamoyo. District C0Unc1l, : ...,., .. ,- • : t --~ ,: . :-:- ~~~ ' ~ : -• -~- .. ~ ·= :.·-~-. ·+ .~ - .. ~ ~ ... - • • .. ...._ < -;,. • ' ·;.....,;;·;, '"'.;,,,;. : • . . . . -~ ,·.··'t~ ._.,,;.--•~i~·-·.- ;.:,__ ...\. __ i" ,._.• : .--.~ . -· ~-:~--,.._ -~ .../··. . - . ___:_ ;.;_~_.. ·.- - - -·t. . •.. :. . , . .. .. ;,: ,._ :, . . :·',;. .... t ·- 9 . . , - . ··-- . - - . . . ;.- therefore they did not belong to the suspect. Further that not all items listed in Exhibit D2 were taken away by PCCB. DW1 did not finish her testimony because when she wanted to introduce some documents in evidence, the counsel for the plaintiff successfully objected.

Thereafter the defendants made a formal application to introduce these documents. For some reasons the defendants did not prosecute this application and it was dismissed. The defence was also- not prosecuted further. On 25th April, 2017 when the case was coming for . . hearing{ the State Atto~ney who had the conduct of_ this_ ~ase, defaulted, _despite his prior !<oow~edge by a dully served summons ..There is, therefore ·- . . ·only the unfinished testimony of DWl to consider for the defence. . ... On J:11e testimonies of the three witnesses for the plarntiff and the same ., being uncontroverted,- it !s my~ fi_11ding that the defendants entered the ~. :- plaintiff's~roontaITTd .cGnduc_ted a--search therein. < ,, • ... • ' · · "· · ·The reason fof ~Y finding is that under paragraph 3 of the Amended . . •written staterrfenf'"bf defence, the defendants stated· tha_t they searched the ~-: house of PW3~ ':Based- 0~ th~ evrde~nce of PW1 arid PW3 I find thaf_ the _. pI 9!nt!ff·was a t~nant.in;·!DW3 s house and consequently in searching PW3 s 1 1 -~. house/ the .. ,~e~ond - defendant's" employees knowingly or unknowingly 0 \ .· searched~the pJ~intiff'strooms. - . ... • • ., l "' · · ·· . . The first i~sw~ is in the· affirmatfve. _. . ,: f_ : Ttie :sec~nd ;;;~~e c~~EJr~i ~h~ iegality bf that, .search, ,and the -~aities • _ • • ._ . , - • • ...... , __ ,.. 1 .n :J ... _,• have oppos.ing 1

,views on· it. T~e .plaintiff maintains that the search was ' l 10 ' . i unlawful because there was neither a search warrant nor local leaders as required. The other reasonJf is that he was not allowed to attend the search. On the other hand the defendant's position is that the search was lawful because there was a search warrant pleaded under paragraph 3 of the amended written statement of defence. Before I proceed to refer to the testimony of DWl on the issue, I have to determine the question whether such evidence qualifies to be referred to, in law. · Not only that DW1 ·did not complete her testimony in - chief, but the . - . S!,-lbstance . of what ~he had stated was . not subjected tc;:,· cross-examinations ~ _by _,. the opposit~. side·. Cros·s-examination is a right to a party provided under ' . ~ . . th&- Evidence Act,. cap.· 6., from section 148 on ro section ·187 .. The ..· . _importance· anq ·oQject pf c~oss - examinations were w~II articulated by this : ...... ~~~... ••,.. • 1·_,.. ;.._~l_;.,.. ,,.,.. ...,•:•,. ~ J>,c • 'It '. ~ ·c;ourt-·(Satnatt:ai·_)>-as ne- then was). in the c<?se; of· ~wiga Mas~ V. ! • M~• , • •_ ~ ~ ·•!~ ; • ~ ~ t •• • • O. ,~ • .... : ; .. -0 , - • > O .. • _: :S~niwel Mtubatwa ·[\98Q] T.L~-~ J.03 when his Lqrdship sta~ed at pa~e .. . . . . ..·t • 109 . ·• · :... c1..· t-,";~ - . . ,. - -·~ ~ .J,4 • . • _'! 1 ~the opject~ /Jf._.

cross-:-examination~. . is_ . to ~-- . ~ . -, . ·~--: ~ · · · ··.• ·• imgea€h th~ atcuracsyi ct?.dibility, and general value ..... P,- i- • i-,,.. '" I • • • •• • • • .... ·: ·*: - , .i : · of~ tb~· -evidence -given· )n chief.; -to · titt~ -'t:he "facts~ · • • ,'(~ ·,: . . • ' •• ai~~~j['stcitecf b)' th_e: vifidess, ·td d~te::t ~nd expose. • ~ -· -~-~-:~<:: .·-T. -~ -;· ·: . discf~i[anci,es~9r.toie/ii/t\;uppresse,d ' 't"•T"';,t~• . .:- facts which wi/1 •~-1 ► ·•t f• '-1 :t• ,. . ' ~.; ; . • :-:i: ~ ·- -.·:<$.:. .f• s'u_P.R~Dti:"f:he p • ~.~;,.,'- .. '~ ' ~ ··: ' . f~ . ,,... t:!. i\: .. . . .,,l,.•,1t..~•••; t • . · :..: t:,. '. 7. .J 4 , ;·.. l \;-f- . . . . , i • ~ ·~ ,. -·td.:•.. ~ ... _~.., --.. .r._ :::~J.;.. i:r.:°'·T• 1•'~-:1:;.:'\·~• , . •.. --r...•.•- ...••. •• •-, . r. ·· ·_. • '. •· · 1 .-: : <1-•'l{ ...t~'._..,'f-.r'- - i. , ., . . .i . case of thi§:cross-examining}J}H:iy/'" -. .• ... ' .. ";.'l_w ,I t : _: ?'"4-:_ t.._. '•·•· :t '! •'"'~ 1' \.t ~- .. ·. ·.. -:. Qn th~· oasis of·tJie importance of cross..: examination as a tool of ; __ • ,_. ._o},,..:..,. ... .. ; : ~ ~.;_~?-·· . · . ;., . .·_' .. ~...... . t"~·.... : ' • :~·~.:..r.~1~¢01:1tr9djc;tih~{~b;})'ppon~ntts' statem_ent and _in buildj~9 t~e- cas~. oft~~ P~r!Y I- - " ~ .- f __... • . ~- - .... - -.-;, ! .. 't 11