D. D. L. Investment International vs Tanzania Harbours Authority (Civil Case No. 213 of 1994) [2000] TZHC 46 (22 May 2000)

IN THE HIGH C01JRT 01" TANZA.1NIA CIVIL Cl.S:S I':O. 213 OF l994t D. D. J:,. INVESTMENT INTERL"\J1\TIOl'-i:.L ••• • o.,,. o • .., .. PiliINTJFF Versus TANZ.i\NIA fo.PJ30UR3 ,\ 1JTH ORITY ••• , • o •••••••• , • , • DEFENDANT JUDGMENT The plaintiff in this ca8e is a joint venture limited liabi¢ity company registered in Tanznnia under the Companies Ordinance, Cap 212 of the Revir:,ed laws. Its members are a company knovm as DDL International Limited iri.co::·porabd in Tanz:'tnia and a foreign company styled as Invest Company LtdQ incorporated in Russia. The objects of the joint venture com1Jany is t) explore and· e:xploi t mineral products in Tanzania anc'l to sell such r 1 r')r;'ucts primarily abroad. Sometime in 1993 the plaintiff company imnorted prospecting and mining equir.'Jo: 0 :nt and indu:strial goodG from Rus:siac The cargo was dis-- charged at th0 port of Dar es Sal8.om e.nd the Tanzania Harbours !uthority, the defendant, took custody of the cargo for rerd~ The plaintiff contends, but the defendant denieP, thd in breo.ch of its legal duties as bailee tha defendant delivered or caused the said goods to be delivered to unauthorised persons. 'I'b.e plaintiff's principal claims again.st the defendnnt ar,:: a su.m of Shs. 8l+J. 1 772,1.J38/= being compensation for the misdcliv-sry and loE:2 of the goods; and a sum of Shs .. 1 -te, 772,326/= being the mo®y paid by the plaj_ntiff to the defendant as storage charges fo:::- the rsaid g0cd2., Ur,-,n the pleadingi:, 9 two isr:uef' have bP.en framed, namely, (1) Whether the goods 1 11ere r.1i2.delivered; and (2) If so, whether the defendant -S>.f' baike was negligent and liable in damage; as asi::erted in the plaint. Iazarus MwaiGaka (IW.l) the Executive Chairmnn of the plaintiff company, set out to clea.:i;- the cargo which was contained in 32 containers on Bills of Lading Naso 301 and 3120 He approached the Government CJe::>r:ing and Forwarding Ager.cy to as2i-t him to cle'.3-r the containers., =:e ile..nded over the Dills of Lading 9 original purchase recdpts, tno exemption letters in respect c,f cu,tom~; and sales tax, import licences and other related documents to Emmanuel Methusela Urembo (Ftlo2) of the said Agency,, TherE)- aftPr Urembo prepared Declaration anrl ~foposal Orders (D&DOs) and Cuetoms Entry Formc- and lodged the documPnts with th8 Customs Long Room. There w§.s a long delay in complrting the exercise and the Ageney ha.ncled bnck to •",C0061J.}

J

• 2 - Mwaisalrn. all the documents. Apparently the plaintiff e.ould not meet the storage charges as well as th·.:: port and documentation charges- The The plaintiff 1;1ar-; seeking a waiver c: -tho2e charges and an extension of the storage pericr. Months ::..ater Mwaisake. ,·1ent to the defendant and presented copies of the D & DOs 1-Iith a view tc cleo.ring the goods. He wn.s told that the goods had ~~ _,appeared from the port. 'I':.1e defendant officials o..;ould not disclose as -co who had taken the goods. Even a letter he wrrJte to the defendant did not elecit any information as to whnt had actually happened to the geode. Befoe thi~ court there is strong -evidence that deliverylO of the cargo we.s taken by one Eugine Belomestnov, a Russian in May and June, 199 1 +.. Delom<f'.tnov was t}mn the Me.naging Director of the plaintiff company and, ,-Jith respect to Mr. Mhan130, lear:p.ed counsel for the plaintiff? it is not ccrr0ct to say tl:.rit he had then bP-en suspended. In subpt::mce the evidence given by :JW.l Mtumwa Mohamed Ruteng,.,e, then a comme3'.'.cia . .L 1:1anag<r of the Dar res Salaam port, ir tlv,it Belc-1:-ic:-,tnov went to his office acr;01panied r.y rui of-!'j -.:::icl of the Govermnent Clen:r·ing and For'.·arding 1\goncy :for the purrio··e of taking the goods from the port. · · 'him Belomeetnov tolc1£that the cle:::ring documents Leo the yellow or buff 20 copies of D & DO,s 3(808 and 30509 haveen mi::;placecL Belomestnov displayed hi.s Russ.an paseport n.nd the man fror.1 the Agency his identify cardo He, mvol, called for the oran···e copir-;e of the two D & Dos from the manifest offic·e and "!)erused tlc::m. Ie then advi1:,ed Belomeotnov to submit a written request to clear the good.s without the :r,roduction of the yellow copiE:2 of the D & DOs. t day or so later Belomestnov brought a letter to that effect The letter, exhibit D3, is dated 13th Mny, 199Y and it bers the plaintiff' Mbeya address. Rutengwe t:1.cm minuted the other port officials and then allowed Belomestnov• to to}e delive::-:-y of the goods. DWo2 Stephen Neo(i.it who was then a. clerk with the f1ency wcs in the company of Belomastnov at the time the goods were beinl!, cle:J.rad. He stated th0.t they used copiP.s 9., th8 buff D & DOs certified by Ruteng,-·e to process the clearance, .:md that the go0ds 1r,ere sent to a ynrd at Mikocheni area in Dar es Sab.-'.:!m. AftP.r n copy of th0 plr:i.int in thfo caPe h3d b:>en 8erved upon the defend'."lnt, DWo3 Donald Songa its lecal officer was indructd tn find 0-.1.t hov the cont.'-'.ine:~8 he.d heen removed from the port and who ha., tqken delivery thereof o He peru2ed the relevr.mt G!'te Passes, exhibit D2, at the commcrcfo.l departmcmt o.nd came to learm that the Government Glen.ring anc 1 f on-:arding Agc-ncy ,•1"[' involv0d in the removel of the goods. In January, 1995 "JY,;J2 Neophi t led him to a d•:?elling hour;e at Mikocheni where

• 3 - he met with Bi:lome:::tnov nnd saw the contninersw le.ter he required Delomostnov to confirm in 1 -riting th'.:lt the plaintiff company had received the goods, which Belom8Gtnov did vide e:-:hibit D5 dated 21/l/•1995a This lf:tter be::,rs a Da.2 cs S,,l.3.nm, ac1dress Le; Pa O Box 32257, which PW.1 Mwai2::i.ks:1 said is unknown to hin., T!1e defendant let Delo::1estnov retc.in the cur-tody of the good.Su tt aprenrs tht?t there WOE tl:ien a bitter conflict between the n1mberf" of +;te plaintiff compeJ1y, whicll corLflict had led to the suspendon of .'.:lomestnov effectivP. from 11th July, 1994. By the plaintiff 1 s JettP.r c'0.ted 10th TJovember, 1991f, the defendant was notified of the su,rpension., Clearnnce of f;OodB frorr the port is a rather long :process 11I1d entails a lot of documrmtation. In sum, D.G related by FW.2 Urembo and DH;,_ Ruteng 1 •·e 9 the conr-:ignee or his agnt has to produce the Bill of ladi..TJ.g, purchasing receipt 0r invoice, import licnce; crtificte from the fi . Tanzania Centro.l Freight i3urr•nu and other documentso He th.-.n h:':ls to prepare tc-.., ny,h'-=:- :J:f r:ui=.:tomi=:; Entry Form as v•ell as six copies of D & 00 ench be'3ring n dif::'--"rent colour, ieo white, blue, green, buff, pink and orange, Properly prepo.red, the D & DO will show the vessel which dit=>ch.::1.rgc,. · the cargo at the po::.·t, t1e date of disch.rge, the consignee, the details of the ca.rgo including the \·reight (llld measurements, the c. i. f value a..'1d signature of the consignee or his agent. All the documents nrc lodged with the Cu,:-tor.is T,ong Room where th<:;y are distributed to various point.so 11.fter the cutoms Md excise.duty and port charges hove been paid the buff and blue copies of the 1 Ix DO are given b,lck to the consignee or his agent and he may then collect the goorls from th:, godown, Both witnesses u.11ders'.::ored the point that the consignee or his ngent cannot collsct the gooi s wi tl:out presenting the buf.f copy of the D & DO. There ls a dispm-i ty in the accounts of U:tembo and Rutengwe as to v.r1n·, should happr,,n where the buff copy is reported lost or mir:-plr•ced in the meantimeo According to Urembo, a report has to be made by the agent to the Police. Next, n fre.c,h set of i) & DO is preredi the serial number of the freeh yelJ.o•- 1 copy i:=, cancelled and the serial number of the lost or misplaced document inse".'ted; and the fresh copy is certified as true copy of the ➔ ori.gine.l., The ,,i tnesF ended by telling the court that goods ·canno-1: . . be releo.P.ed on the strength of·a photocopy of a D & DO or incomplete set of • documents~ On the othT hmd, Ru.teng· •e ti:.:stified that 111here port ch~rges have beer_ ~~id and only delivery or collection of the goods is pendings, it i:- needleG: and unneces,sary for the a.gent to tender a, police loss report or to prepare c. nev, set of cl ocuments. It is noteworthy, that Ruteng,··e 1 s experience in cleariL goods was limited to cle-::1ring while effects on return fro•11 trips ab read,

• l,t - new set of ctocurr: -,pt.s. It :s note, •orthy tht Ruten5 1 -·e 's experience in clearil:0,; good::: wrs limit ,ct to clnring personal effects on return from trip::; nbro.".'.d 1 while it was U:c8mbo' s boo.st thPt he had cleared different kinds of goods at trie port for a reriod of n.i.nP years. As afore st:: +:ed, th,::, first isi=mec framed is whether the cargo 1,,0.s misdelivered, ::::1 argrn·,Fmt colmreel for the plaintiff m3.ke,s the f ollo1-1ing ,\ftAr t1e c.rgo had nrrived from Russia Mwa.isaka took the Bille of Lading and ot:1sr relr ted documl:"ntB to Urembo who assisted him in ·chf] clearing. :Sut r.11 thc.t Urembo dicl was thr:, preparation of the Custdns• Entry For:nc:, and the Declc:r::1.tion and .Sisposal Orders. Mwaisaka did the e.ctual cl,:::r:.rance of the good,s iafter Urembo had returrn=:d all the documents to him and upon paying customs and cxci.se duty and port charges. After completing all thB stag"s he remained with the yellow mid }:;J.m, copies of the two D & D0s.o lfaen he went to collect the containers he was told that they h::, d been removr-d from the port, but none of the defendant's officials was wilJin,s to tel1 him who had taken them~ It b quite cleer, Mr. Mhc.ngo submits, th8.t the rlaintiff had no authorized agent at thP. material time otaer than Hwaisa.1::o; and that there ws no W8.Y that c:my 0,1, other pereon could have collected the goods since all the documents wer(' with Mwnisnka himself.. Mr. r 1 Ihango also makes the point that under Article 8:08:02.(:c) of thr:: Joint Venture Contrnct, exhibit Pll+, the respondbi.li ty of cle:-ring of ir:morted 11oods was pla.ceEl in the lw.nrl:::; of the Loc-e.l PB.rtn,,r of the Joint Venture Company.ie. D::)L Inter:ntional Limited~ Mr. Mnzav3, of th2 ':i:'anz'.'1nia Lep;"ll Corpor,.::ition advocnted for the def,c:.ndant and hfr subr;1i,sdon is of the following nr->ture: Delomestnov was an autr. Jr::zea o.r;rnt of the pln.intiff uhen he took the container.:" out of tho port,, That mu;ct br=:- P-o because: (a) Article 12:12:01 nnci o::: of the J oir.t Vi'iJ.tur Con trct provides tht:i t thP daily management anc1. ndministr:d;ion ':)f t:1e bu.:,in0s2 of the plaintiff company sha.11 be run by the Mnnctgin Dirrctor; (b) tho.t Dir-ector-s are, in the eye,s of the law, o.gents of the cc1pnny for which th0y net; (c) the clering goods fror:i the port ,,,ns the r2sponsibility of the Loco.l Fortner during the er:=;tnbl .::. ment and ini tfr,J op,, r!;'tion of the com:rany, and thnt once the comp,.:'l.ny ,,o,s incorported, i c,s officers aprointed and the Foreign Partner offic0rs arrived, then the :Jrovidon of Article 12:12:01 an.ct 02 co.me into r,lny; o.nd ( d) th:::t at the mati:1rfo.l time the term of the fir.st chafrman, ie. Mwais:.1ke., had e1,pired nnd Mwnisrurn ho.d thus no mnndate to institut8 the present :suit, citing Article 11:11:02 and 03 of the Joint Vi:;nture: Contracto In the circu::r.sb:mces, Ero Mnz,?.vo. contendP, there w-:is no mis- dli-,01'y of t11.0 goM.s 0

'· Mr. Mhnngo 3.· .,., thf\t T3elom,,scnov ho.d been suspended at the time he:: collected. the goods frorn the port and mo.kes reference to the i plaintiff s lettc,rs to t1e depon<:1ant d,9.ted 15th Auguf't, 1991+ and 10th Novemb.-,r, 199. I.a inc1icnted, Mr. Mhango is mfrtGken. The lettr-r dc.ted 15th f.uguc:t, 19? 1 : v1.':'.s not formo.1ly tc;ndered in evidence. It i,"' however clr-: '-'r fro:n the letts:r dotd J_Oth November, 1994, exhibit pl.,., thot Belomes'·novis 2uapc:r21on 'I/PE effective from 11th July-, 1994. As alre"dy mer1tioned 1 th.;; evidence 1r1hich is not in dispute shows that Belomestnov ·col1ected the goods in 1finy and June, 1994-. But thnt does not conclm:;ively estfl-)lish th'.::t Belor.1cstnov w:i.s an authorized agent of the plaintiff .-:1.t the cime he coli ected the goods. As pointed out by Nr. tfhnngo, the ½urden of proving thnt Belomestnov was the plrdntif r' 1 s authorized .-:i.gcnt is on the dfendnnto The point urged on behalf of the defend'.'!.nt is th'1t the clering of the plaintiff's imported goods from i::he port was tho respon.-sibility of the M3.Ilaging DirE<ctor, ;,:,cnus9, it is said, the stege of the company's initial opera- tion h<.:!. passed 1.nd the pr-ovi.sionr, of f,rticle 12:12:01 and 02 of the Joint Venture Conr-'.1ct had come intc force., This is sheer f'.TJ('Culntion nnd 'it is pertinc:nt to observe tha.t :lrticle 11:11:02 to t-. 1 hich ncferenc-e fr, m'.Jde by Mr. M:1z:1.v-::! o.lPo -provides thc.t cthe dutie2. of the E::recutit1JtJ Chairmv.n rh::".lll h 1 : ddc:,rmi11ed by the l3onrd of Diro<Jctors. 11 Eqrolly Fμ2culc tive i" the point tho.t Mwo.iso.ko.'s t2rm of office as Executive Chair121an h::-d ex-pirr.,d nt L.e time the good1o were collected from th-:: nort~ It is al20 to be obef,rvr::d th:-,t under the EiD.me Jrticle the Executive Chairman's term of office 1 :rn0-y be extended anc 1 rene,,,ed by the Board of Directors. t: In the ultimc.te 0111:clysis Dclo::nestnov got delivery of the goods by displnyir:,.,; :1i" :'.::us=-io.n passport to :)W. Ru:!:engwe and prePnting the lctte, exhibit D3.. He did not hnve o.ny authority th'.J..t would hnve introauc0d him to Rt·_tcn'51'Ci o.s -che plo.intiff' s Man-;ging Director., ' Rutc.1gwe c .'S not know the person who wc.s in Belomestnov 1 s comp!lny o And there is no evirience th9.t Rutcnc, 1 e w.:1s told anything ne to how and · where the cle:iring documents got losto On bnlruice, I 4ccept the test:i- mony of Mv,10.iso.k.~ tha.t the clearing of the goods wns the r0sponsibili ty o. ·· the locnl i?artr. ,r. It is beyond doubt tho.t Delomestnov lied vhen he told Rub,n8,,·'e th,'.2t the cle:i.ring documents ho.v,, b,;en miE:placed. We hve herr the :i.'c"J.ctc• th::,,t tho;::,e documents we're in the possession of Mw::.isaka. It E''}ems to me ttot i3elome.stnov wo.s all out to perpetr,~te a fro.ud., In these cireurnstances, it tnl."l_riot be snid th::i.t the goods were delivered to thr:: proper person or agent of the plaintiff. I thus h,ve to ans1.,rer the first i1?sue in the nffirmc,tiveo I

• -I
• 6 - th ~ · Le.t m~ fir·t retnt the lw nnd the I turn to . r-; seconv u:;;:-ue. official i-'· .J.J.tions p· rtnining to the matterc A bailee is under a legal obligation to to.ke re{'sonable precautions to obviate· any risk of loss or damage. Sectic.n 103 of the Lnw of Contract Ordinance, Cap.433, provide-s r:i -f"olm- s:--- 11 1030 In al: caees of boilr.ient the bnilee ii; bound to take e.R muc:.1 c::i.-r-e of the good~ bc:ild to },j_m as .?. man of ordin,:ir? prudence would, under simibr circumstances, to1;:e cre o:" his avm goodF:: of the same bulk, quality and vo.lue as the goods bail,id. 11 Section 10 1 : of th·· th::t Ordin.:mce r.n.kes it absolutely oleG.r that in the absence of nny sp,cfa.1 contract the bailee is not responsible for thel loss, destruction or det,,,rioration of the thing bailed, if he has taken the amount of car8 of it described in the above section~ In th0 event of loss, it lies :in the hc..ilee to acquit himse,lf by 2ho,.-•ing that the loss was withnu+ "'..ny -f.,ult on his pa.rt or en the part of his servnnts~ If he does not d:::.sch,::rc,;e the onus the los:s falJ. on him.,_ The relevo.nt resulcttion2 for ta!.dng c~.re of the goods enb·u.sb=d to the def&ndr-.nt Autl:ori ty G.re ree;ul--.:tion 210 of GN 1+51 of 1991; clau.se 24 of Volume ::.: of t>'.:! defond.:--,nt 1 s TrlU'iff Book and section 35(b) of the Tanzania Hnrbc,ur::: Authority i\ct, 1977 o Under regulntion 210 of the ' GN, Decl:,rotion c:1c! !Ji1:po;::il Or:'ers 9 or Delvrffy Orclr::, ir:- nmong the set of docnmr;nt2 :-i. consigneP. or his :1.gent mu· t produce to the def end:=mt before delivery oI' tl1c ccrgo may 1Y; made. Cluse 24 of the TnriffrDook if, in the folloving hrmG :- HA che.rge of US$ 3.00 for ea.ch order shail be rei2"'d for amr:mdm• 0 nt or canceJ.lation of orders.' Thi:s shall include the p1epr.r,tion of frePh docum-nte t,then thP. documents are reported lo,-t. 11 S0.ction 35(b) c.- the Act rend.s thus:- ( !l ) (ti) any p0rson clciming good:=; in the possession of the authority does not produce the documents showing that h,: is entitled to take delivery thereof the nuthC'rity may withold delive.ry of such goods or proceeds, until the person ap-reDrin1 to the Director General to be enti- tlr:d thereto has given an ind.rmity to his satisfaction I

..

• 7 - ngain:c:·:; the clnir:1 of other such goods or proceeds.n i I 'I I I I ' person i ! i with respect to Returning to the bnileevs obl:Lgation in ree;frd to goods bailed, I should add tb.Ctt it fa nov a set "led legrtl prir1ciple that if such .goods are stolen, I a bailee for rewctrc j: undPr duty to se8k the re:covery of the goods., And Ha.lsbury I s l.a.;,,s of England, Lfth Edition I Volume/ 2, tells us cit p,:-'!ra 1G39 . · d h f'' F 1 • h · b · /. 1· n-ch1· ef- t:;•:.t + .. '.~e · duty •• a pa13se,ge quot:e , .. y ,ro ,;.·o.n(s'o in is su m1ss.1on ___ _ . I exists irrespective of w:1,Jther tbe theft occur:ded -,ithout default on the I part of the bailee. l ' I have no,· to look at the evidence on re~·ord r.i.nd appraiE'.e the Berne., I . Hh.sit 3elomestnov proc'.uc ·d bi:'fore th<.; defendrmt 's officers were hic- Russinn I Pa8"'port and o. lett,·r czhibit D3 ·which he wrote himPelL DWo2 Neophit's I ' allego.tion w,s that Di::,lonr,2tnov nl,30 produced copies of buff copies of the I t··o D & D0 1 s certifi,,d by DFnl l<uteng, e.. Th.if' is in conflict 1:rith the . , r te1;timony of Rutcng;we nd I r;:-ject it as P. 1/ie In my jur 1 gment, th0 tvo ' docurnentE ,r'1ir.l1. :Selr7ef'tl:)pv produced to the /defendant s!'lould not ho.ve been ! 8ufficient i::;o give 1 •->..tb,>n tv c1 dilig;::nt 'bailee for believing th.'.1t Belomcitnov ! was actually the 11::m:u;ing T•ir<?ctor of .;ne nJ.aintiff company or the propc:?r person to t;:.ke deliv("ry of the good.so In 1eply to a quectLn, Ruten6'• 1 e stated tlrnt he could not imagine a foreign/ investor to tAll li1=:r:;c That ' tells it aH. Th::rt wns bdng too crcdulout anc! imprudent c I i It is not in dispute thn.t the procedure laid do·m under regulation 21G . I of GN 451/91 W8.S not follm,,edo Like-wise,/ the procedure prescribed under I clo.u2e 24 of tbe Tariff Dook., According ito Ruteng 1 -·e, it i,s only where the I clearance clccum,::nt.s o.re lo.<:t b0fore cletri'ancc is made that the 1rcces.s of ! making an official lo:,s roport and the s:ubmis2ion of fresh documents is 1 J.; ! necessary. 1 :Jl:J;ere the clenrance process lho.s been completed and only deli very ! of the good;=; i.s penr 1 ing, a.s 'DS the cosip in the prose?t matter, the defe- ndnnt has discretion to aif:pense with r}esh documents. Like Mr. Mnz::i.va le2rned counsel, Rutenc:; 1 e 0.}20 seems t? believe th9.t clause 24 of the Tariff Dock if: only .'1pnlic .. ,ble uh8r(• orc1erl"' 3.rc amended or cancelJ.edc As pointect I out supra'l p;oz TJre·'.x: '·'''.'F 0.t V:"l.rienc,=/ Pith Rutengvee I I should go by the tedimony of yrr:,mbod He has hd fo.r more experience in the bu:=:incps of r::k:.:i.rin:::; g-ood2.thnn Rutenf!',re. And there can harlly be _ I .,, cmy doubt th:.:ct it i::: uitbin the inten:<lr.1Fr.t o.nd requirement of clause 2/f of I . the Tariff D,.,)k th::t~ .,ter·,, t1'JP od.rstJ"-1 clenro.nce document:- are reported lost fresh documc-mto ln1.lF't b;; prernrea before deliv~-ry of the, goods iE' m'.:.de/. ' i of thnt clou, e to ,so.y that it is on~y ' mcl duly presented to the defendant It iF", in my opinion, a mi-constructil ap;1lico.ble where orders are co.ncclled or nmended. I c.ccept Mr" r,Jh:mso' s /):>ropod tion tht o. prnchmt bo.ilee shoulc, I l'

9 The defendant I s assertions ,:..re bo.t tr..e goods were collected by t"he two persons; tho.t the goocls a.re in their possession; o.nd that they , the defendru1t, nrc entitled to indemnity to the full extent claimed by the plaintiff. The third p:::irtie2 hcve mo.de def::;ult in entering o.ppearance, which tend2 to fortfy my find.::.n,S th-t the goods were mi.sdeliverr::(1.. b the circumf"te.nces 1 the tlurd pr.rtiP.s mu,:,t be deemed to e.dmit the v,:,lidity 0f the judr;ment obtcined ng"in --t the cc.efond.:-i.nt ,'.:md th0ir lial::ility to indemnify the defondnnt to the extent claimed in the third-p:]_rty notice. There will be c. decree for the d efondr.:nt ago.inF"t the third portics a.ccordinp;lyc 22/5/2000 Coro.m: Mutungi, ;)R/HC. Mr• Mho.ngo For the Plaint i-7f Mr., Mnzawn1c: For the Defendru1t CC: Nester. Sgd. D. P. M/l.PIGANO JTl1X3E 27/4/2000 Court: - Judgment rec,d this 22nd Mo.y, 2000 in the presance of both counse· repres,mting p.rtie.s hereto: Fo S. Ko Mutungi DEMY GIST HC. 22/5/2000 Mr. Mnzavas: - I hc.,re in~·tructicn~ to o.p~-9al n.g'.1in:c·t th0. judgmenL I therefore nroy to be served with n copy of judgment ni::d proceedin~~ and decre. F • .S. K. Mutu:ngi DEPUTY RSGISTHJ1.R H/C 2/5/2000 Court: - Counsel told to file a. fprmo.l Notice of Apneo.l nnd thP- c.:1me be filed in this court. , '> ,,~\ _ /" I I ' : .\ . \ t ,•. F o S. '\o ~UTUNGI DEFUTY,. l"'l-f-~iti'"U1R H/C

• ... _.. I. 2?/5/2000