M/S Gimunta Trade P.S Enterprises vs M/S Affiliatee Business Contacts (ABCON) (Misc Civil Application No. 125 of 1999) [2000] TZHC 594 (18 September 2000)

MREMA, J., IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT MWANZA MISC" CIVIL APPLICATION NOul25 OF 1999 (In the matter of application to set aside the expa.rte judgement i..~ Civil, Case Noo 10 of 1999) M/S GIMUNTA TRADEP.S ENTERPRISES oooooooooooooaoooo APPLICANT Versus: M/S AFFILIATEE BUSINESS CONTACTS (ABCON)" o o o .••• 0 o RESPONDENT RULING M/S GIM:UNTA CHAMPION TP.ADERS ENTERPRISE, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, is the Judgement Debtor in Civil Case NooOl/1991, and --=- M/S AFFILIATED BUSINESS CONTACT (ABCON) is the decree holder., In that suit the decree holder cum plaintiff sued the judgement debtor for the recovery of outstanding debt to the tune of US.$51 1 079/51 .. Interest at bank rate from the date of filing the suit to the date of judgement, also interest at court rate from the date of judgement till full settlement., and costs of the suit t-,ere prayed for .. On 9/3/1999 this court (Nsekela, J) allowed the plaintiff-decree holder to prove the suit ex-pac···- w?, ":::o :::.:f,..,~ 4 ,,.nt-judgement debtor, though properly served, faulted to enter-appearance on the appointed day, and no reasons were supplied for none attendance. In the result the plaintiff prove his case exparte by oral evidence as directed by the court., Judgement was therefore delivered ex-parte on the 20th of August, 1999 as prayed in the plaint, with costso Following the outcome of that ex-parte judgemen the judgement debtor, now the applicant, filed Miscellaneous Application No.125/1999 against the Decree Holder, through M/S Rweyemamu & Rugaimukamu Law Firm, for under Order IX rule 13 - (1) and XLIII Rule 2 of the CoPoC, prayingfhe setting aside of the aforesaid judgement and the parties be heard

I .al 2. inter-parties. •·The applicti6n is supported by the A#fidavit of . ' Ji. Gimunta, the judgement debtor The latter affidavit, however, is countered by two affidavits, one ,filed by the Respondent's advocate, Mr. Thomas Bo Mihayo, and the other one by one Edward Njoroge 1 the Principal Officer of the Respondent•Plaintiffo At the hearing of this application Mr~ P.,RoK~ Rugaimuko.mu and Mr .. T.L Mihayo, learned advocates for the applicant and respondent, respectively, appeared and contested for and against the applicatio:no A thorough reading of the applicant's affidavit gives me the impression that the applicant is admitting liability to the tune of US $26;081,.17 and this is as asserted at paras 3 nad 4 of his affidavit,- The assertions are repeated hereunder verbatim:- 3~ That by n·ecember, 1997 balance for unpaid for loading services.were $12,868 which was engered (sic) by the• changes in policy in Kenya Breweries Ltd who decided to transport Beer to Tanzania themselves. 411 That in May, 1997 the ~pplicant and the respondent entered into another n.greement whereby the Respondent supplied to the applicant building materials for the consumption (six) of Tarime District upon IDA support with a value of $13,2130170 So, when the amoW1t stated at para 3 is added to the nmount stated at para 4 the total value of the debit apparently admitted (as said above) is US.$26,018017" But with respect, the affidavit appears vague or inconclusive, in that it is not stated specifically as whether the applicDnt is admitting the af9resaid total amount, nor does the affidavit refer to the totnl decretal sum, ·of US $51, 079,.51--.., But the main question here is whether the reasons supplied by the applicant in his affidavi't are tenable in the circumstances to setting justify this court to L o.side its ex-parte judgement given in favour

3 of the respondent on the 20th of August, 1999. It is uncontroverted fact that the applicant is admitting receiving ·the copy of the summons for orders issued by this court on the 4th of January, 1999, which summons required the applicant to file WSD within 21 days - see applicant's admission 8t pG.ra 5 of his affidavit. But according to the applicant he alleges that ne received the summons on 16/1/1999. Then para 6 has the following to say: 60 That on day (sic)rcontacted by phone the Direeto~ of ABCON Ltd - the respondent and explained to him the bottle necks that had held the payments, and we agreed tbat the respondent would instruct this lawyer of DSM l"ir o MIHAYO to withdraw the case, to enable me to continue to demand from the government the balance of the unpaid money for the goods v.re had supplied. We als"' - .. agreed that we should have made good the balance by month July 1999 (sic). A reading between the line of the above cited paragraph tend to convey inference that the applicant is admitting the claim, save he needed time to raise the balance being demanded through his clai.ms against the Government. At para 7 he contended that in view of the fact that as both the parties had transacted a lot of business for a long time, and that each had built trust in the other, it turned to be the applicant's belief that the respondent would undoubtedly withdraw the suit, as both had agreed over the telephone. Consequently, therefore, h~ contended, his failure to attend the court on the date the suit was scheduled for his· hearing, o:r his failure to file WSD, was not caused byeegligence. The learned advocate for the respondent Mr. ToBo Mihe~o countered with much force in his affidavit denying strongly to have been requested, on behalf of the respondent, tp withdraw the suit - see averment 3. He fu.rther stated that after the applicant had failed to comply with the law to file WSD he (Mihayo) took all the necessary steps to cause the

... respon<:le:11t,.to ,prove . .:1~b.e..i:ae. ex-pr:te, 1;J.S .. approved by tp.e co~t, by,,.or,~ .. '.J ... '•:. •·' ·~. .•i .•. . . . •. ..,, ';"_ ' . . . . . . evidence, ar:t<\ a.J Jp.e. end/)f,: hr. day -judgeent ws gyen \n .:lih.~ re5Fondent 's favo\ll'-e ·'- The learne.d .testtq;r-. concJ.,.udect by, saying tha-4:Jhe. appli-cai.on ,is .,:.: J •.>' .·. . ;;:-,;. ·- : .•.·. ~:=- .. · .. : ,· ~· .. 1 •• :. ~. • • "' • • • • •- •. designed to defeat the ends of justice, hence delaying a proper judi,ci?l .'f. "·'·· . . ' process. .;. In f,1.lP,p9r\ or t1ihe.y_o!~ pμnt __ r: atfda:v t, the Principal offiqe~;. of the .Respgnde_nps company, . to wit, ;Ed~v1!U'd Njoroge,. vheently depied: .. , ,. . . ·, ·-· • - •• ... . • '·1 • • ' . • • . . .. ,, that him or any other director of J..BCON ever eAtered. into an understa;nd,~ng or agreement. with the applicant-jud15ement debtor, to withdraw the case; ...... or even t? request a la1:"'Yer to de:, so~ That, any failure by the applicant . ··-. ·, to enter appearance or to file WSD was caused by the ap_plica_nt for reasons best known tb himself (appellant)o .. -· .. In response to Edward Nj9roge 1 s counter affidav.it Gimunta- reiterated ( .. . ' ·-· . ~ l:4.s. stand .to, the effect that h~ tll,<ed, to :~-he ,,sc3:id ]jJdward Njoroge. on .• telephone and agreed t.1:1,at Hsinc. t_hEp., Gcivr.i;unep.t had· yet ,to release the·; . . pa~;ep.ts .it .was o,f· nq};>ody~. s. advantag~. t:~ .re.sort to court proceedings"• c"--,:. In. ha regrd he ~ 8 ed th.;i.t J!jorog~ ,.is -tryin.g to be elev.er after the , . evento In conclusion it is his surmise that he was misled by the trust .• he hct vested in Edward Njo,rogee -. . . . ~ . . ! • Perhaps .-it' is ·wdrthwhile putting· on record in this ruling what transpired in the 'demised ''Mi~'c~\ Application Nool77/1999:. · In tl1at appli'.batio:ir·' the·. applicant ·11k"d "filed the applica:tion·· praying" for an order for s·to.y of. exe.cutioh pendinr;· the hearing and fi'nal·. disposal, of· the present application., · \4hen· that ·applicat:i.on c':'meio for hearing cm ·15/2/2000;. the . ·parties conserited to ad:;jbu.rn the:mat"ter t/17/2/2000; g.s they ·were·tryi"ng to se·ttle 1.t·out--·o:t:cb'urt~'-·:011 the same da'y, ;hoi1ever, it turned out that .both'.-t:he' 'lea_rned aq.\r6c8:tes; Mr •. ,j~uga;imukam-ii and Mro Mihayd, informed:'this ·: . ► : • court':. 1:liat both the parties had decided" to drop the application for stay of execution arid'( c61'i.Centrate:•6'n the pre·serit application·_;· Misc.App·.N6.J25/1999. . . That a:ppliscatibn·,for: stay ·or·!rkecution tias theref6:re •vii thdrawn ··. <rt was· then agreed that the parties would be given up to 17/2/2000 for a "'possible

5 settlemento But i-ihen the parties met me on this latter date they informed me that there was' no compromise - as yet because the applicant . . ' · .. _ .. Gimunta was -having some •ctifficul-ties in contacting the respondent . ·:F . ·- . .-:-.- . - (Njo;g) i17- ridirobi·.· · The appli,sc::-ion W<¥3 then adjourned to 7/3/2000. The intended compromise was never reached and so what took place o 7/3/2000 was the he¥in,g of th~ applicacion in full. The learned advocates did not introdur~ anything new to the averments contained :i.n the respective affidavits of the parties concerried 1 ·save givin~-hih lights on them. I have given serious'· considerat;i.ons to the reasons for and · against the applicationo In terms of Order IX rule 13-(1) of the c.P.,C, 1966 it seems to nie that there a:rf onli two sufficient rea;,ions· . ;~~-.V,hih' ~ appli.cantdefendimt . can. satisfy and convince· the ·c~ilrt to'· " ,_., exercisr its. discretion :to s,et aside an ex-parte judgement. ·: One o'f the two resrii is that the ' SumnJOilS Tor orders' et ce tera, was not duly ser:ved; ~d the' ~ther reasol1 is that:he t-1as prevented by any ·sufficient- cause.; ,from appearing when 'the suit was called on for hearing .:. also see :the ·3Y'n:opsis of M"tJLLA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (Thirteenth Ed) Vol.l_at page 816, Para 13. Iri the preseri.tapplication it is not disputed that the applicant was duly served with · the surnn;ons for orders ( issued on 4/01/99), the same . . . . . . :having been served on t_he applicant on 16/1/1999«: He could not therefore rely on the first reason entitled to him by virtue of rule 13-(1) of Order IX but, instead, he has sought to rely'on the second rea1:,on, as ·shown in his affidavit at para 6 0 y the said rule (Order IX rule 13- (1) ) · I have no:doubt that this court is competent to come to a decision on the question 0£ sufficient cause on affidavit evidence - also see K. SUBBARAYDU V 0 K 0 'RANGIAH 1961 (1) and W,.R., 212. Under the same rule, -- 'I am a1so :inclined to. the view that the. ;law :d6es. nbt- empower or entitle court. to exercis-e its inherent powers to set· aside nn ex-pa:rt.~ -d~cree -·. <·passed against a,'1fendant who failed to appear at the !l.~q..ring., '.):hat ,..

,-(Jf"'.J:!';ert->. : .. .·· _ .... -t·..t:.:•t'/:~.:-,·· !·{.·.:•J;_,,--t·;)_~ :;'\•-:· _-, .. '° :--.--)-- .. '" - ·-· .. _ . .,.:. """' ~ is a matter for the discr·etion of· the c6urt,"·and tnat ."discretion isr' -:-:: ,c · ·e.'f,;··,(i ,·;:-£~0;'.'..JJ.r·.:",: .L,I.J:r·r:.::;· ,> ipg. ·:-:, 8 :.-1,.,., 0.·f'' '1i ;-·.i: -; ,_,.. , 1 ,.,,, ... •. exercisable upon suffic;i..en:t. 9feiu 9 / ; :. .shown., -, 011 J:;h;i_s 1 prqpo$i tiotr '· 1 -· 1 .:ir-,J • ~ •'\ • • -- A • •• • • ..... J., • • ' ' ....... •• 0 '. • .:_... • I e;:v;'! 0 th 1 :;t?d!Y 9 !.fr: 0 ~ 1 jJ tr:r:i\ ~ :rt1i@f /i/lt'tBif+-tlWoug1¥t~~&:fJD.4r\ttf':)i.[qqA -~ e.(d.orii: If!f;; I ,sorrsbl:vu;."t).;,0';,;Clcf<YX:'P.!O c!r' 6 :r.i:.v::H1··rf6 6 0 .-.;;ti!mJ:,±v 1c: ca::w.i:q md 'status) at para 14, page 817 1 that states:- o• f"tA[ ... .!• • l r • l 1" -- ...: -. • ,.)': f;·:::, ~ ;:- .. ~ ., ·' •· ·, :. ·.::1. •••"",1 ;,_:.; •.: ,;:- • .\ .. • v"'...,~.u-V8 B O'{;S[1Lt'': ·-0,:J-0 ·-rr- ~r: J . - • .L 10

• .J 1' •. ,f'l:J 80.C,:) 'L• ·IT<)'I ?. D 3.S.d '}'IDq Ifo.i:.rfl.1 '{):'.c\ oi , ... !ere an_.,e-pt.e_ dE:,crr,_e a:3 been?ir'P~~@e..u 0 9:::>115000 e_or1e,,rv t)a;fJt£Ct•ict:iigfrJ;i,;;/\ii~!r'l;:rJ?'f iipp~'ar'ld: -IdL,q.c_::i jop; al .1:;-:·., .. • '•(•· . .: .. · .. ·-·,,,l,··' .. ,, .. .,.·,,.· · .. ;);.i.::, .!J{e ''i'fi{ii~'le\ttitit, ·-·ne'ilis•Jnot' 1 ;ent ;i,;tJ.,d; -to· liive. ·,::_:: ':.--~~- . c,: ;G:. ·, ; i: h..tb s;-1r:-10i· :·the decree -·se.t',:as'ie. iv a· .matt~=Ir,, o.:f c:ore- ".. '· . , , . :· · •• . · ~ ~ .... ·• • ... , ••• • • ··.; i .. ' ••• • •• : ,. , :.. •. !.' •·1, ... -'.:.; 17 f!•;n·-, 9 • ...... ..:, -..;d.£.':,'JCJ11':JO . --- -··, r, ,vn· if•_iie ap;i-ties" _on· .thE: rsamei:aay ,fot· the ',,. ;·• .; -'.! bn., .. ).t,i.. ,. __ ,)-;.: ':?)=r~:.:; rr.-..;:··,r =-_·-·( -;::; ·-::-;:·-- -:,,:(n: •n.::t·· </f:,JC7t··:1~ i.:.<j '");i.[:xj~-; t .:-; . ,"2/, ;'.: ,· p:- ._rt r~~rfj na;tter _f_o _:he .d1scrt1on< :fo.!t,;:,, for.l".;;· H ,:. O'.f'.IL,·, • ' ··r th' .. ,·, ':-<" t'vl•·.· "t ·.::· '"' , .. · •.,· ·rV r,,,1. ~ .• ' -. •., \ j- :::, cf • R e c'-!U..+ • . .. i · •• -·. 0 ., . • •• ,, .. ,rL, 'ltT,,I'( :wq .. ··i:lL. f1J :-11:J 9 J.Doc~~" 11 ;}(!.rnct mJ:H·. · .LE'.i:fl'.Bb -1n:◊wa. ;fc.rI· ·:J-duob j< IIoz.cs-:c :The- $JJ.;ijfio(. f 6!]86M.~~ir.0i i-2ti:].rJ .J.-is; wroo\r.er .: the·. reason-·supJ:ilid bJ: ,c :-: ,,....., • r< • • .... • .,... .... __ . ....... ...1, ..... :----r . ..1. -,.,1..:.. .... !.,.i;.. ...... _r.:.,;~ ,r~-'-·,,,. ... "' t.-:,..,,. ::·:tB.fi-ipi>;tf6bn:tlet6 ·}i~~ :A:one:Lapp'e.'.'.lnce: '0:11-r•the:;-appointea day' .. or:·:for ;n.0:t :"••: .. , • .? .. ; :. , • • , ' • • • ; ".· • . • ' ••• •. ·-... • ... ,· ·, , filing.tl:le Written Statement of Defence within.the time specified in tne ;; __ •-~ •.• : - " ;· ! . •• . •• •. • •• • iJ; • · ' : , .... • :. ·:. ·-· ~ : • sunnnons is a sufficient reason or cause within the meaning of sub-rul • f :;):,:':'1".f_.'":::,.'· .... ' . } . (l) of rule 13 of Order IX of the CoPoC, 19660 The problm thttt there (( '· "~ ' • .,. ~ ._; • •• • • • r • .t.: . • -. _,. · #,, • is,-,,irtha! :wp.*e .. he. ap.plt~~t. canva:s·ed ·his''ground in· hiEf enqevour J· .... -.. -·, .. ,; ., .. !.: l .~ .. ;.'.r.~~ .-: .. ·:.-: r::·. :: ... - ... _r.:;,.·E"?-:-.P,,....>.,:· f.-; :, 'Jo;_ ... !!• >;-:,- :1.?.·/ ,n.. by:;w§Y. gf c3.ffidavit in o:rder to s_atisfy the court· for his failure to S~'-v_.C~.i.J --~~ :. t;t~.'"!O~'.r,.--- 1·-:;..r-r,-,._(·';- 'j:"\ .. ," .. i /"'-:' r_:J,, ·-/.·:::.;,;. , c .,,1~ 1 ·,-,,{ .. :t1 1~ ·• · .. .- .'.·:J:, .. ·"t£j .)_._.r. e,n1rt ,a:I;?p~~~~~ J·, the, ~~~ponnt }fir.ough, Lhd.s a.dV()Cate . countered with .. Oi.;;.LJ. .. -,...!-. .. _ •' _ .• , 1 ,·'·•-···· •• "'-:- ... !·,:-_. -:,- ··,,. .. •·::--·.- •::.,!"!"> ... ,·:,,r. - -:::.'.~ --;->_:,.,.·,~~1.t-,- y:;:· force ainst the reasons given by the applican:t- 1 -It--has already been ;-;-",;.;.>•.'JC ::••,.,·¼,,:r·;, r;J c:-:-r•r_./::r•_' !:T·•.•·:•)/ ·J} '.·•• :•:· 0 .." :-.-;_:.. •• ,,:,.-.'.r•:•: .. :/•- . , \ --·c, ·,i:I•;.•' w:•, :,: , noted at par:a 6 of affi-da,id.t that .the applicant is urgihg that· there was . • • : ". :.-.,-·•i'; :• ;,"t"r __ ,,,e., tt , "i • ,/: ;..., . , •.",. :,-, o : , - . ,1,,' ! · · ·: ~~r,f!J!ent between him and the respondent that the re$pondent wo,:).d no ,:,'" ... '· ·-.·. •· ••• '. <;t -, __ • '.:•·•· :( ,: . .'-.,'' t:•.·:· :, --,- ·,; ·:-; j'.[:,:L·, .. ,;. loe;er p}lrsue _. the suit against the· appican( upon understanding that the 1 .. 1. • ' - ! - ~ < , - - • • ' - ..... -~; • ...... : ' t • '.'' ' 0 ;'·:plicpnt would press hard·.th~ Government .to'pay:him his mbriey cla:ims .' ::r~..so'J<: /i. y:::; , ,·'•; .. .",;;.,:.':.: · •:','., .';° r '.:. ,.···_ •.. :···. -,: :· ·• \ · .· ·' ·'.against, .t.he go1e:rnmei?,t ·:·so 'tha.J;;: :irl turn 'the.1.a.pp1·icai'it 1 ··cou'1:dl p.ey,,off .. 11.is::>:c·-. . ··-· . - . . -· . . ' ' ·" , · .·· -, ... dbt;ithth ···;es;ondint":· . And· :fhaf "t"he'"resp6ndent wciuI'd· st-ruct-:his· · · -,. ' ,,,.., :: ,_-: -·· ,"', - ~ • :. ·,• : • • ' :.., ,, -:-:. • •• ,. < ' 1""' (J lawyer _one Mr. TeBo Mihayo 1 in'Dar-es-Salaam, to withdraw the suit from .the court. But' t:tiat affidavit.:.evidence ·o:f the. applicant ·\Jas: not only opposed ·t .. ,. by';the re1?pondentts a:f,fidavit-evi,denc b"4,t :also by the ,.i,earned·.qdvoca,te, Mr. T .Bo Mihayo, who ·categorically denied }:laving been contacted by hi~ -~ --•ciient 1 the Respondent; to cause ,the CIVIL SUJT N0e0l/1999 vlithdrami from the court A~· ·:t~ '~s Mr. Mihayo 1 s affidavit is .concerned I have no good

GU.LU. VVU..L l,O OUUV.i.U.L.Uctl,C L,J.lC..LCv, octvc. l,Ilt ri-!--UJct..LJ \JV.l. L,' J.,J..C ..1.0·,-':. one of the court'. officials and, therefore, 'h~ has all . . . . . -~ . -. . . . . ' before any court of law, __ .inc-luding :ail 'his ;act's· d'statements un_less · -· •.·• it can be rqved 6-€)1erwis • .- Mr. Mihayo' s: dni·ais :nst the aJ;)plicant I s .-· story 2xe c,ou,ched in his affidavit as folloltlS: , ;;:J/f.;.l.:i: . • _• _1 ·• .. fl•· 'Tht±rice -v:,{ ii-t~ii:. C114P Gqi.se· No99 in the High Cour,t .of Ta:nzania at . Mwan;a - . ., . · I was i.n constant co.ntact w-ith rrr:/ :clients M/S ABCON on. and about the case,. . I:. ,'· That at no any o!;le · time ,did. they request me to withdraw the case for any reasons whatsoever, While it is highly probably "true that Mr. Mihayo was not c<;>ntacted by his client about the story told by the appli9ant- at _para 6 _of his affidayit, it is hard to believe Njoroge I if :1eni.als ( as- stated at para,s; 3 and 4: of ' the· his affidavit) on the. ground that he is/interested party in~.ae fu~.f,t-~/ ~ ..

• j and, also bearing ·in min_d ·.fhat the 2...lleged conversation was only between the applicant and the Respondent-.Njorog.e. Ne.ither party put in aff;i.dav,it . . of an independent witness whd' heard the alleged conversation and seemingly, therefore, what is- in the evident record are parallei sta.tements by the , ·, Applicant·andespondent 1 one assertingand the,other:deriying it, On the two pieces bf e'vidertie, each ht-wil.lg no corroborative evidence, I Ml une1ble to say is not 1i1hic.h pnrty has a trongr ase . supplying - capable · 0 :t /.. corroborative than t'h other, Mihayo 1 s evidet1,e evidence t Njoroge•s evidence oecauoe it does not say that it· l~as impossible to he:ve such conversation and
• . . compromise between the applicant ·and the respondent. And if Njoroge did strike.th;t to~promise with the applicant but later changed his mind and . . · -disclos:ed__; . · . _ · - •. never /_ ·. the same·· to Mr. ?1ihayo, I a.'Il unable to see how Mr., Mihayo .. could stand firm art<l say that such a transaction -between the applicant and the respondent --did riot take place.,·· ·under· the- circumstance the applicant ~•, ~·:Ii"" , ..

is entitled to the benefit of doubt, in that the alleged compromise r .- between the parties, as averred at para 6 of the q_pplicant 's _affdavit, was probably true. . .. , .. Havin.g,-,-q9me to the, above conclusion•·, -I have .done, th _ne1 .... · · ··· . · · · ·· .set question is whether the ex-parte judgement should be/ ·aside or not,

• ., With respect, I agree with the learned advocate, Mr. Mihayo, that a proper reading ·of.''the app.J:.icant ts affidavit, at paras 3 1 4 nnd 6, presuposes that the appl.i9ant .. defendant is not denying the claim.- As :, -\ already stated above paM 3 and 4 clearly show that the defendant is admitting a debt in the sum of US $26,0l8el7 against the total claim of us.$51,079.51 - leaving unadmitted debt of US $24,998.34 In my view therefore, it would be unjust to require.the defendnnt to file v!SD to oppose something which himself has unequivocally admitted. In the resu1t I would set aside only that part of judgement on the unadrnitted claim of US $24,998.34 and·confirm part of the judgement on the unequivocal admission of us.$26.081.17. Thus, to say differently, the ex-parte judgement passed on 20/8/1999 in favour of the Respondent-Plaintiff is hereby 9 et aside only to that part of the claim not admitted, as herein above stated. The admitted claim is granted with costs and interest as prayed. Following the above finding I now make the following orders: (1) The applicant to file WSD, if any, to contest against _.:t;he unadrnitted claim of US.$24, 998.34 and the same should be filed on or before 30/10/200f!Jo (2) Reply, if any, on or before 16/10/2000 and mention on the same day (16/l0/2000)A ., A. Co MREMA JUDGE

9 Delivered at M1t.rnnza,. this-·18th. of September, 2000 i.Ji). the presence of Mr.<Rμtai$ire learn~d aq.vocate;_ . • • ,/"f: . . -· ... ' on behalf of Mr. Rugaimukanru, learned advocate for the applicant-judgement debtor.· The Respondent.a.D/Holder, . . :~~. . . . . ~ - or his advocate; Mr. Mihayo,.\leq.rned ~dvocate,. is/nre absent • -. ~- ..... . . . :·\ ! ... ... ·. . JUDGE 18/9/2000., :·,·.