Ramadhani Tendwa v. R., Crim. App. 166-A-67, 16/3/68, Seaton J.

Ramadhani Tendwa v. R., Crim. App. 166-A-67, 16/3/68, Seaton J.

Applicants were convicted of purchasing 50 bags of maize without a licence from the National Agricultural Products Board, and the grain was forfeited by court order. The High Court quashed that conviction, whereupon applicants sought to reclaim their grain, only to find that the

Police had since sold it at public auction, for shs. 1,126/80. Applicants claim the maize to have been worth Shs. 1,900/- and seek either that amount of money, or else 50 bags of maize. At issue is the question of whether the trial court should have allowed applicants to adduce evidence as to the market value of the maize at the time it was sold by the police, or whether, as the district court held, recovery was limited to Shs. 1,126/80.

            Held: “In resolving these problems, it may be helpful to refer to the Government Proceedings Act, 1967. That Act provides remedies against the Government for liability in contract, quasi-contract, detinue, tort and in other respects as if it were a private person. The applicants’ substantive rights against the Government, therefore, are the same as if they had suffered damages or loss through a quasi-contractual breach or tortuous act of any private citizens.” Applicants were awarded Shs. 1,126/80 but without prejudice to the applicants right to bring a civil suit against the Government for recovery of the difference, if any, between the amount recovered here and the market value of the maize at the time of sale.