IN THE HIGH COURT OF
(COMMERCIAL
DIVISION)
AT
ARUSHA
CIVIL CASE
NO. 10 OF 2005
ANNA TABARO RWEYEMAMU……………………...………………..
PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. KILIMANJARO GAME TRAILS LTD
2.
KHALID
MBARAK
3.
EPHRAIM
DEMEKSA…………………………………………….DEFENDANTS
JUDGMENT
The above named plaintiff claims against
the defendants jointly and severally for the following reliefs:-
i) An order in specific
performance to allot actually 25 shares purported to been allotted to the
plaintiff but not allotted.
ii) An order for payment by the
defendants to the plaintiff of all sums found to be due from the defendants to
the plaintiff on the taking of the account of all profits from 1999 todate.
iii) Interest on the decretal
amount at court rate from the date of judgment till fullment; and
iv) Any other or further relief
as may be found fit and just by this court.
In
this case Mr.Sang’ka advocated for the plaintiff; the 1st defendant
was represented by its corporation secretary one Mr. De Souza Junior, Mr. De
Souza Senior learned counsel represented the 2nd defendant and Mr.
Merinyo learned advocate represented the 3rd defendant.
It is not out of place to mention that
at first this case was handled by Kimaro, J. (as she was then was). She took and heard the entire evidence on the
plaintiff’s case. Following her
elevation to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania
In
this case the plaintiff called five witnesses; whereas the defendants’ side
called a total of six witnesses. As
usual before the commencement of trial, eight issues were framed.
The undisputed facts in this case are to
the following effect:- That the 1st
defendant is a limited liability company incorporated in Tanzania Tanzania
It is the plaintiff’s case that she knows
the 2nd defendant and 3rd defendant very well. She knew the 3rd defendant since
1993. In actual fact she said he is her
friend and the two are running a restaurant together since 1995 todate. She came to know the 2nd defendant
through Mr. Mahatane. It is the evidence
of the plaintiff that the 2nd defendant requested the 3rd
defendant and plaintiff to join him in the hunting business.
At first the plaintiff was not
interested. The 2nd and 3rd
defendant started by signing a memorandum, presumably she was referring to the
establishment of the company (1st defendant).
Be
that as it may, the 2nd and 3rd defendant could not get a
hunting block for almost two years. Meanwhile,
the 2nd defendant keep on persisting the plaintiff to join the
hunting business. At long last, the
plaintiff gave in. She however gave
condition that she be allotted 50
shares and that she should be free to divide her shares as she wishes. At the end of the day she was allotted 25
shares. A certificate of shares was
given to her (Exh PI). The certificate was signed by the 2nd
and 3rd defendants the directors of 1st defendant.
The three then jointly wrote several letters including (Exh P2) to the
Director of Wildlife applying for hunting blocks. Their efforts paid dividend as they were
allocated a hunting block known as Brurigi in Biharamulo District. The 2nd defendant expressed his
dissatisfaction because the area was depleted by refugees; It was dangerous area. The 2nd defendant told his
colleague that he was not prepared to risk his life. Efforts were made to get another hunting
block. The plaintiff claimed to have
introduced the 2nd defendant to several Government Officials in the
Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism with a view to getting blocks. She also claimed she made a follow ups. They were given another hunting block
Ituru. The 2nd defendant said
that that area was more dangerous than the previous one-Burigi. He told her he was not prepared to accept
it. The 2nd defendant then
told them that as the situation was not suitable, it is better the company be wound
up. He gave them blank documents and
requested them to sign. The plaintiff
signed two documents; which documents were later tendered in court by the
defence as Exh D11 and Exht D 12 (minute of the Board of Director of the 1st
defendant dated 11th July, 2001 and a transfer of share). It was at that juncture, she saw the need to
contact a lawyer. She saw one Mr. Mpaya
Kamara. She explained him the
story. She was advised that the books of
accounts should be audited by a qualified person. On hearing that the 2nd
defendant was not happy. He decided to
convene a meeting. Indeed, the meeting
was convened. In that board meeting, the
2nd defendant brought with him some documents. The plaintiff and the 3rd
defendant rejected the documents.
After a week or so the plaintiff
received a message from a company called Business Consultants Associate
Services that she collects the accounts for the 1st defendant. The plaintiff went to the said company where
she met David Ntambo (PW 5). She was
given a copy of accounts of the 1st defendant for 2002 and that she
should pay Tshs. 200,000/= as fees (Exht P3).
As to how the said company was involved
in auditing the 1st defendant’s accounts, Mr. David Ntambo (PW5)
said they were appointed by the 1st defendant through a letter (
Exht P9) signed by the 2nd defendant. And why they sent the copy to the plaintiff,
Mr. Ntambo (PW5) said they were told to do so by the 2nd
defendant. And the 2nd
defendant gave them the telephone number of the plaintiff. The accounts report was tendered in court as
(Exht P10). However it is the
plaintiff’s evidence that they never had a Board of Directors’ meeting which
appointed the aforesaid company to do the auditing. On going through the report she did not see
the name of the 3rd defendant as the director. She informed the 3rd
defendant. The 3rd defendant
took no step. The plaintiff was not
satisfied with that state of affairs.
She saw Mr. Erick Ng’amariyo-advocate.
Mr. Erick Ng’amariyo (PW3) confirmed to
have been approached by the plaintiff for legal advice. He wrote a letter of 23/4/2003 (Exht PW4) to
the 2nd defendant, expressing the plaintiff dissatisfaction with the
way the company was managed eg. usurping the powers of the Board of
Directors. He suggested a meeting with
him and other shareholders which he agreed. The meeting was convened on 16th
May, 2003 (Exht PW6). In attendance were
the plaintiff, the 2nd defendant, 3rd defendant and Mr. Erick
(PW3) himself. In that meeting it was
shown inter alia, the share structure
as follows:-
i)
The plaintiff 25% - shares
ii)
The 3rd
defendant – 25% shares
iii)
The 2nd
defendant – 50% shares.
It
was also agreed:
a)
The profit and loss of the
company will be equally shared by the three shareholders above, strictly
subject to verification.
Following
that meeting, on 7/6/2003 Mr. Erick (PW 7) wrote a letter to Mr. Felician
Mahatane advocate for the 1st defendant about the appointment of
Ms.Frida Mwijage to conduct the verification exercise. By his letter of 19/6/2003 (Exht P5), Mr.
Mahatane did not object. The book of
accounts were verified by the said Ms. Frida Mwijage a Certified Public
Accountant (CPA). Ms.Mwijage (PW 4)
explained how she verified the accounts of the 1st defendant for 2001 and 2002. She informed the court that
she encountered a lot of hurdles. She
was not accorded corporation when doing the exercise. However, she managed to verify the
accounts. She said, for example, she had
to rely on the 2003 brochure instead of the safari fees and hunting contracts
which she got from other source and which had almost similar rate for 2001 and
2002. On going through the accounts, she
discovered a number of irregularities.
For example, the expenditures were not supported by receipts, or cash
sale. She was of the firm view that the
figures do not reflect the true and fair financial position of the company. All
in all she said the company got profit.
She tendered her report as exhibit (Exht P.10). That is the plaintiff’s case.
As earlier stated, the defence side
called six witnesses. The first one to testify
was Naeli Shani (DWI) an Assistant Registrar with the Business Registrations
and Licensing Agently (herein-after referred to as BRELA). He is a lawyer by
profession. DWI confirmed the following:
First,
the 1st defendant was incorporated on 9th April, 1997. Second,
the initial shareholders were the 2nd defendant and 3rd defendant
with 60 shares and 40 shares respectively.
Third, the initial capital of
the 1st defendant is Tshs. 1,000,000/= divided into 100 shares of
Tsh. 10,000/= each.
It is however, his evidence in chief
that on 15th April, 2003 the 3rd defendant surrendered
his 40 shares in favour of Najma Khalid, the wife of the 2nd
defendant. The transfer of those shares
were duly sanctioned by his office. So,
the 3rd defendant is no longer a shareholder of the 1st
defendant. As to the plaintiff he told
the court that she has never being a shareholder of the 1st
defendant. He admitted to have received a letter from Mr. Erick Ng’imaryo dated
4th July, 2003 (Exht D2A) which complained the manner in which the
40 shares were transferred to Najma Khalid.
He informed the court that he was the one who made a reply to that
letter by their letter of 18th July,2003 (Exht D1). Besides, he also told the court to have seen
minutes of the meeting of the 1st defendant held on 15th
April, whereby among others it was annexed with a transfer of share (Exht D3).
When cross examined by Mr. Sang’ka as to
whether there was any attempt to transfer the 25 shares in favour of the
plaintiff as shown in (Exht D2B) he answered positively. As regards the allotment of shares to the
plaintiff on 28th October,
1999 he said he was of the opinion that the same was done under a common mistake.
On the otherhand, Khalid Mbarak (DW2)
informed the court,that he knows the 3rd and the plaintiff very
well. He and the 3rd
defendant established the 1st defendant. At the time he testified, he was the Managing
Director of the 1st defendant.
He confirmed the plaintiff evidence to the effect that they were
allocated Burigi and Ituru hunting blocks which were not suitable. They requested the Ministry of Natural
Resources and Tourism to allocate them other hunting blocks. The said ministry through their letter of 5th
September, 2001 which was faxed and received by the 1st defendant
promised to re-allocate another hunting block if one falls vacant. The fax letter when tendered in court was
objected on the ground that it is a copy.
With due respect to that assertion that cannot be correct to our present
world of technology. This is because the
process of transmitting any content by is fax totamount to sending the original
record to the recipient. So it is
incorrect to treat the letter as a copy and therefore a seconday evidence.
The letter tendered which was not
objected by the 1st defendant was accepted and marked as (Exht D7).
Turning to the plaintiff, DW2 said the plaintiff
was the one who approached them as a potential investor. And he went further that the plaintiff was to
invest heavily. As regards allotment of
25 shares, DW2 said she was not given because she failed to contribute.
He
however, tendered minutes of meeting of Board of the 1st defendant
of 11/7/2001 whereby the plaintiff is said to have surrendered her 25 shares
(Exht D11) and signed a transfer form (Exht D12).
In
short he denied the plaintiff’s story and prayed her claim be dismissed with
costs.
Ephraim Demeska (DW3) confirmed the
plaintiff’s evidence that they are friends and that he was a shareholder of the
1st defendant. As to how the
plaintiff joined the 1st defendant; at first he said he cannot
recall whether she joined on her own or he approached her. Later however, he said he is the one who
persuaded her to join the 1st defendant. And the shares were re-allotted accordingly
namely he and the plaintiff each took 25 and the 2nd defendant took
50. He recognized the share certificate
(Exht PI) which was signed by him and the 2nd defendant. As to whether the plaintiff and himself paid
for those shares; first he said they did not pay. Not long after saying so, he changed version
and said he paid for his shares. DW3
went on to inform the court that after the meeting of 11th July,
2001 he and the plaintiff decided to surrender their shares. Later, it transpired that in law he was still
a shareholder of the 1st defendant.
He also found the plaintiff was actively engaged in running the affairs
of the 1st defendant. It was
until in April, 2003 when he sold his 40 shares to Najma when he ceased to be a
shareholder.
When cross-examined by Mr. Sang’ka,
about the allotment of shares to the plaintiff and the exactly date he ceased
to be a shareholder as evidence by (Exht D2 C) and (Exht D3) DW3 did not dispute the contents of the
aforementioned documents.
Then Dick Juga Mabuba (DW4) an accountant
cum auditor with Kawiche and Company Certified Public Accountancy and Public
Practice gave his evidence. His evidence
is centered on the propriety of (Exht P8) prepared by Ms. Frida Mwijage (PW4)
which he saw when reviewing the previous report for the 1st
defendant, their client.
First, he said that you verify books of
accounts and not financial statements.
So, according to him what Ms. Frida Mwijage (PW4) had done is not
correct. Second, he said a brochure is
not a source document of accounts, it is a merely an advertisement
document. Like in the previous position, Ms. Frida Mwijage
(PW4) was wrong in relying on that document.
And lastly, he said the statement does not show expenses incurred by the
1st defendant.
On completion giving evidence Mr. Sang’ka
took the witness to task. And one of the
nagging question asked was whether in view of his qualification, a NBAA holder,
he is allowed to sign any auditing accounts of any company. The reply was in negative. It is the response to that question which
made Mr. De Souza, senior to call another witness one Mr. Helgod Christopher
Kawiche (DW6) a Fellow of the Tanzania Association of Certified Public
Accountancy in Tanzania. DW6 gave
similar story as that given by Mabuba (DW4).
He however, added that accounting documents are invoices, cash receipts
and payment vouchers.
Last but not least is Mashaka Yasini (DW5)
a tracker with the 1st defendant since 2001 and stationed at
Burigi. He informed the court that
hunting in the area in 2001 and 2002 was not successful due to a number of
reasons. Among the reasons advanced are
poachers, refugees and bad roads. He went
on to tell the court that for those two years, they managed to get one tourist
hunter. When cross examined by Mr. Sang’ka,
as to whether he came to testify that the 1st defendant did not make
any profit, he answered positively. In
short that is the defence case.
As earlier started, before the
commencement of hearing eight issues were framed the issue are:-
1. Whether the 2nd
and 3rd defendants invited the plaintiff as alleged by her into the
membership of the 1st defendant or as alleged by the defendants
whether the plaintiff invited herself to invest in the 1st
defendant.
2. Whether as particularly
alleged by the 3rd defendant the plaintiff fraudulently acquired
allotment of shares.
3. Whether there was condition
precedent that upon allotting the 25 shares to the plaintiff by the defendants the
plaintiff was obliged to immediately pay for the said shares.
4. Whether the plaintiff as a
shareholder is entitled to profits from 1st defendant
5. Whether the plaintiff
suffered loss and if so how much
6. Whether the use of influence
by the plaintiff was a pre-condition for investment in the 1st
defendant’s company
7. Whether the plaintiff had
surrendered the shares back to the company.
8. To what reliefs are the
parties are entitled.
I
will go straight to the issues. In their
joint final submissions, Mr. De Douza, Junior and Mr. De Souza, senior for the 1st
and 2nd defendant respectively submitted that the 1st and
2nd issues should be answered in the negative that the plaintiff
presented herself to be a potential investor of which she failed to pay. Mr. Sang’ka on the otherhand urged the court
to find that it were the 1st and 2nd defendant who
invited the plaintiff.
I have carefully read the evidence of
the plaintiff. Basically, her evidence
in respect of these issues is to the
effect that it were the 2nd and the 3rd defendant who
persuaded her to join the 1st defendant. And it was the 2nd defendant who
followed her. This is what she said, I
quote;
“I
have not gone to the company and requested to invest in the company. It was Mr. Khalid who followed me. I know very little about hunting
business. I was given share certificate
by the company”.
This
piece of evidence was not challenged at all.
If indeed it was the plaintiff who intended to invest in the 1st
defendant, I don’t think the defendants would have kept quiet to that
version. I am satisfied and I
accordingly hold that the 2nd and 3rd defendants invited
the plaintiff to join the 1st defendant and allotted shares to her.
As regards the 2nd issue, the
plaintiff to have fraudulently acquired shares as alleged by the 3rd
defendant the plaintiff informed the court that she was allotted 25 shares and
she was given a share certificate. The
same was given to her by the 2nd defendant. Like the first issue, this piece of evidence
was not challenged either. In actual
fact the 3rd defendant when asked by Mr. Sang’ka about the question
of fraud, he categorically denied the plaintiff to have obtained the shares
fraudulently as alleged in paragraph (1) 7(b)( c ) of his written statement of defence and
disassociate himself with that paragraph.
So, no fraud was ever committed to obtain the shares. I answer issue No. 2 in the negative.
Next is issue No.3. It was submitted on behalf of the 1st
and 2nd defendants that upon allotment of shares, the plaintiff was
required to pay and not gain an unfair pecuniary advantage using illegal
influence. On his part Ms. Sang’ka
submitted that this issue is linked to issue No. 2 and it ought to be resolved
in favour of his client.
The available evidence on record does
not show expressly or impliedly as to the conditions attached when allotment of
shares was done. In any case if that is
the position, I think it was the duty of the 1st defendant through
its directors to inform and request the plaintiff to pay, which I am sure she
would pay. I am saying so because, if
the plaintiff managed to pay sh. 200,000/= as fees for audit and accountancy in
respect of the 1st defendant for 2000 (Exht P3) at a short notice,
she would have not failed to pay for the 25 shares which is Tshs. (10,000 x 25)
= 250,000/=. Further, the defendants indicated in the
share certificate (Exht P1) the plaintiff to have fully paid for the shares! There is no explanation at all from the
defendants as to why they did that, if at all she did not pay. The defendant are the ones who know better
why they did that that the plaintif did not pay and yet indicated she paid. But under the doctrine of estoppel the
defendants ought not to have denied the plaintiff to have not paid for the
shares in view of share certificate (Exht
P1). The Osborn’s Concise Law
Dictionary, Sixth Edition defines estoppel thus:-
The
rule of evidence or doctrine of law which precludes a person from denying the
truth of some statement formerly made by him, or the existence of facts which
he has by words or conduct led others to believe in.
Be
that as it may, since there was no condition attached at the time of allotment
of shares, the plaintiff was not obliged to pay her shares immediately, if she really
did not pay. So, the 3rd
issue is answered in the negative.
Having read the remaining issues very
carefully, I found out that it is appropriate to discuss them in the following
order; I will discuss issue No. 6 then issues No. 4 and 7 together. Lastly I will discuss issues No. 5 and 8
together.
Issue No. 6. It has been argued on behalf of the 1st
and 2nd defendants that the influence of the plaintiff in acquiring
hunting blocks in the first place is an illegal consideration. In any case the plaintiff had to prove that
she paid for the shares.
Responding, Mr. Sang’ka submitted that
the plaintiff used her influence to secure the hunting blocks. For instance, he said the plaintiff saw one
Costa Mlay, the Chairman then of the allocating committee of the hunting
blocks.
I have given a deep thought to the
matter. I was unable to see any
evidence, direct or circumstantial which shows that the allocation of Burugi
and Ituru hunting blocks were the result of the plaintiff’s influence neither is
it shown the use of the influence of the plaintiff was a pre-condition for an
investment in the 1st
defendant company.
What
is in evidence is that the plaintiff actively participated in securing the
aforementioned hunting blocks. A case in
point is a joint letter (Exht P2) signed by the plaintiff 2nd and 3rd
defendant. So, I answer this issue in
the negative.
I now move to issues No. 4 and 7. It has been submitted on behalf of the 1s and
2nd defendant that the plaintiff is not a member of the 1st
nor had she ever been. Even if it is
assumed the plaintiff was a shareholder, she had surrendered her shares to the
company as evidenced by Exht D11 and Exht D12 thus waiving all existing and
impending rights.
Reacting, Mr. Sang’ka for the plaintiff
submitted that the defendants contradicted themselves. At time they said they allotted the shares in
good faith and demanded the plaintiff to pay for them. They cannot deny at this stage that the
plaintiff was not the shareholder and member of the 1st defendant.
In their joint written statement of
defence, the 1st and 2nd defendants admitted to allot
shares to the plaintiff. This is found
under paragraph 6 ( c). It reads:-
6
( C ) Para 7(b) is admitted, in that, the allotment of shares were done in good
faith subject to the condition precedent that the plaintiff’s should pay for
the shares so allotted.
We
have already resolved that payment of shares allotted was not condition
precedent for the plaintiff in joining the 1st defendant. But were there any shares capable of being
allotted?
By its Board meeting of 28th
October, 1999 (Exht D2 c), the members of the Board resolved to re-allotted the
shares as follows:-
1.
Ephraim B. Demeska (3rd
defendant) - 25 shares
2.
Khalid Mubarak (2nd
defendant) - 50 shares
3.
Anna Tabaro Rweyemamu
(plaintiff) - 25 shares
Not only that it was also resolved as follows, I
reproduce.
FURTHER
THAT the secretary be directed forthwith to file with the Registrar of
companies return of the shares allotted by this Resolution in the form prescribed
by the Registrar.
Indeed,
the resolution was dispatched to the Registrar of companies along with (Exht D2
B- return of allotment of shares: and share certificate (Exht P1).
But
the Registrar did not make a reply. It
was after he received a letter from Mr. Eric Ng’omaryo (PW3) when he replied
that the re-allotment was done under common mistake. And by then the shareholders were Khalid
Mbarak - 60 shares and Najma Khalid 40
shares.
I think the intention of the parties
namely the 2nd and 3rd defendants as to re allotment of shares to
the plaintiff ought to have been respected.
It was the duty of the Registrar of companies to direct the parties how
they should go about in transferring the shares as agreed by the parties and thereafter
re-allotted to the plaintiff instead of keeping mum. Since that was not done I am of the settled
view that, the plaintiff who was all along under the impression and believe that she is a member of the 1st
defendant, is entitled to those shares re-allotted to her on 28/10/1999.
It is argued in the alternative in
favour of the defendants’ that the plaintiff at a later stage surrendered those
shares. If we accept this version, then
it goes without saying that the plaintiff was a shareholder. The question now is did the plaintiff
surrendered her shares.
It is the defendant’s case that the
plaintiff surrendered her shares on 11/7/2001 following the Board meeting
conducted on that day. But the plaintiff
took an active role even after she surrendered her shares, if she really
surrendered and the 1st defendant through the 2nd
defendant communicated with her on a number of issues concerning the 1st
defendant. The plaintiff for instance
paid Tsh.200,000/= as audit and accountancy fees as evidenced by (Exht P3) of
8/4/2003. The 2nd defendant
wrote a letter (Exht D14 of 6/6/2003) to the plaintiff requesting her to pay
her contributions for the hunting season 2003.
And to crown it all when Mr. Eric Ngu’maryo ( PW3) convened a meeting on
15/5/2003 (Exht P6) the 2nd
defendant did not inform the meeting that the plaintiff is no longer with the 1st
defendant. In view of the above
circumstances, therefore it is becoming increasingly clear that the plaintiff
is still a shareholder; she has never surrendered her shares.
Since the plaintiff is still a
shareholder, it follows as day follows night that she is entitled to whatever
is available by virtue of being a member of the 1st defendant.
Last but not least are issues 5 and
8. As regards issue No 5 it was argued
for the 1st and 2nd defendants that the plaintiff failed
to prove how she suffered loss; and so, no losses were suffered. Mr. Sang’ka on the other hand appears to fuse
this issue with issue No. 8 by referring
the court to the prayers his client has made in her plaint. With due respect that falls under issue No.
8. However, having perused the record, I
found out that there is no evidence adduced in respect of issue No.5. I accordingly answer this issue in the
negative.
Having resolved that the plaintiff is a
shareholder and still a member of the 1st defendant, she is entitled
to the following reliefs. One, as the purported
25 shares were not legally allotted, I hereby order that the same be allotted
to her as resolved by the Board meeting of 28/10/1999.
The
second prayer namely payment of the sum of money due from the defendants to the
plaintiff is not without difficult. It is difficult because there is no input
from the parties; save the verification report. It is the defendants’ case that the 1st
defendant did not make any profit after getting the hunting blocks. That was the version of Mashaka Yasini (DW5)
a tracker. One wonders whether this witness was competent to testify on that
espect. But Frida Mwijage (PW4) who verified the book of accounts of the 1st
defendant found out that the 1st defendant got profit. Frida ( PW4) took pain to go through the book
of accounts and wrote a report (Exht P8).
The report gives at a least a picture of the 1st defendant
financial accounts. And Frida (Pw4)
categorically stated that the statement do not fairly disclose a true and fair
financial position for the two years 2001-2002.
This is because the defendants did not provide her with the relevant
books or materials to enable her verify.
They were not cooperative. I have
gone through it, the report as earlier stated give a picture of the financial
position of the 1st defendant.
In absence of any other document, I think it is quite proper to rely on
such report. The 1st
defendant got profit. Otherwise it would
have not continued with that business todate.
According to the report for two years,
the 1st defendant got as follows:-
YEAR
|
Reported
Income
|
Unreported
Income
|
2001
|
21,108,600.00
|
162,401,400.00
|
2002
|
21,933,600.00
|
206,493,900.00
|
TOTAL
|
43,042,200.00
|
368,895,300.00
|
For
two years the 1st defendant got 411,937,500/=
However
the report is silent as to expenditure.
Of course the 1st defendant must have spent some money. I gave the matter a deep though. I think Tsh.
211,937,500/= as expenditure is reasonable, under the circumstances. So we
remain with 200,000,000/=. This amount
should be taken as profit for two years.
This means 100,000,000/= for each year.
We divide 100,000,000/= according to the
shares. The 2nd defendant 50;
3rd defendant 25 and plaintiff 25.
So
the plaintiff is entitled to Tsh.25, 000,000/= for a year. For those two years,
I award her Tsh 50,000,000/=. However,
there is no evidence as how much the 1st defendant got as for the
year 2003 to date. Since the plaintiff
did not actively engaged in running the 1st defendant affairs, I
think Tsh. 10,000,000/= per year as the plaintiff’s dividend is
reasonable. For six years (2003-2008) is
Tsh.10, 000,000 x 6 = 60,000,000/=. In
total I ward her Tsh 110,000,000/=. The said amount will attract an interest at
the court rate from the date of judgment till final payment.
All in all judgment is hereby entered
against the defendant jointly and severally as indicated above with costs.
B. M. LUANDA
JUDGE
13/11/2008
Order:
I
order the Registrar of the High Court (Commercial Division) to deliver the
Judgment to the parties on an early convenient date.
B. M. LUANDA
JUDGE
13/11/2008
%20(10).png)
%20(1).png)
0 Comments
PLACE YOUR COMMENT HERE
WARNING: DO NOT USE ABUSIVE LANGUAGE BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW.
THE COMMENTS OF OUR READERS IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY.