Mwenyekiti wa Kata C.C.M. Igawilo vs Saidi Kaswaga (Pc Civil Appeal No. 41 of 1999) [1999] TZHC 296 (8 December 1999)

i J " IN THE HIGH COURT. OF TA.~Z.ANIA AT _r-'.'BEYA PC CIVIL APPEAL NO. 41 OF 1999 (From the decision of the District Court of. Mbeya District at }beya in Civil Appeal No.

4 of-1999 - Original Uyole Primary Court Civil Case No. 14 of 1998 BEFORE: P. A. LYIM> - ~SIDE.1\JT KAGISTRATE) ¥~IB.~YEKITI WA KATA c.c.M. IGAWILO ••.••••.•••••••••• APPELLA..T VERSUS · . ,$AIDI KASW.AGA ••••••••••••••••••• JUDGEtENT MWIPOf:9.., •. i• In this appeal the advocate for the respondent the learned fllr. ushokorwa (Adv.) has raised preliminary points which hve • been argued together with the rr-ain appeal that the suit was void,for the res judicata doctrine applied to it. He cited the previous cases which·decided their dispute prior to the present case as being a Ward Tribunal Case No. 31/93 which ended up as Uyole Primary Court Civil Appeal No. 3/1993 as well as Uyole Priar--y Court Civil Case N0. 9/96. The same previqus decisions were produced by the respondent as . trial the def 8ndant at the L ~ of _this case (PC) Uyole Civil Case No. 14/1998 as exhibits A - c.· When a doctrine of res judicata is raised the court rust tru{e•great pain to satisfy itself that the doctrine applies er doesn 1 -t for if it applies it precludes the continuation of the new case with grave consequences-to the plaintiff who is therefrom estopped from prosecutg his complaint for ever.

• The possibility of having this doctrine applied in this caae was known and -dacided upori by the trial primary court of Uyole in the present case. All the parties too were aware of he· possible application of this doctrine in this case i.e. appellant as plaintiff through out the trial and through pis witnesses. When the complaint was read ov.er to the respondent as defendant on 13/10/98 he denied liability o easons that the case had started along time since 1993 and that the appellant did not appeal in 1995 d again in 1996 the suit agaist him was. d~~~~-~~~~- 0 ... ;~~: same gr~·und of res judicata. In his testimony PW.l Yesaya ¥ambungu explained that the Jvunicipal Director told him that he would counterch~ck 111 - ~- • .. • • with the Ward Tribunal and court assessors if there was a . ' previous judgement on this plot_ and the letter of the . , ! . f' • • • .. ,I,. • • J'lunicipal Director dated 16/10/97 with ref. filfJC/W.20(14/V0L.II/2 was produced by the respondent as Exhibit D in which the . · •' J!unicipal Solicitor

• '. that (tr. K.Ii'. _ Luanda) t?ld the app~_llant f:is , ' investigation had proved that tere was a court decision , . . giving t'ight of ownership of the plot to.the respondents by , . . the Uyole Primary Court Civil Case No. 9/96 decided on 27/3/96 that the doctrine of res judicata applied. PW.4 about Jailos Mwakingili testified · L •. the previous cases as having not xisted at all..PW.5 George Kalabwa admitted to have opened up a Civ.11 Cae against the respondent "' previously which was dismissed without bing.~eard. (This is Civil Case No •. 9 /96 Uyole Prirrary Court) • : • PW.6 Rabani V.wakingili. on cro_ss examinatio;n by the 1st- gentleman assessor testified .that there was a previous case with the respondent. • .• /3

.. 3 - The respondent in his defence relied heavily on the doctrine of res judicata. He testified to have been sued in 1993 to have the cattle pen removed at the ward tribunal ~~ere he lost and was fined but won on appeal at the frimary .Court of Uyole. :.--t,., 1 _ __ ·_ ·_ . _ He was sued again in 1996 as per his testimony by . ,,.George but the 2nd case was found to be res judicata. He . - . produced the previous court decisions in his favour. 3¼ ... of his defence on oath rested on the res judicata prinotp}@ . -• baVi!)g protected him from this , suit which specifically d hirn as being in unlawful ownershi.p of the plot in quesion and for having unlawfully built by orce some ' .,houses on lt and for having been invited to keep his cattle n f(?r temporary use only._ So tar the issue -of the applicability of the doctrine oi res judicata in this case has been dealt with by both twe 1owercourts as follows: The Priary Court of Uyole held as f0lJows.- I quote :tram- .the judgement of the Primary Court by the learned Yr. Kiporrela.(PCM) and the two gentlemen assessors Jailos and Robati:.;;;. · __ -.' · 1 • ·, • HMadai nayo yaliposomewa mdaiwa hakukubaliana na alisema Kiwanja hicha ni chake, alipe~G na CCM Mwaka 1991 na kwamba kesi hiyo ilisikilizwa fwaka 1993 na yeye alipata ushindi. Mwaka 1996 kesi ilifutwa tena baada ya kuona yeye mdaiwa 2J.ipata ushindi. Mahakama hii baada ya kuona huku1nu. anayodai mdaiwa alipata ushindi ilionekana madai hayo yalikuwa Mradi wa f,aji dhid1. ya 1'fd2iwa ill aham.ishe zizi la ng 1 ombe siyo kiwanja chote. Na sasa ,·

-·· 4 - mdaiwa anadaiwa na.lf.wenyekiti wa·ccM wa Kata ... ili mdaiwa kuacha kiwanja_ c_hote. Hivyo haiwezi ikawa 1 •res jud.i.cata" mashauri yaliyokwisha .. hukumiwa. Ndipo ushahidi_ upande wa madai ulianza kupokelewa mahakamani kwa kuanzia na mdai." 'I'he quoted Swahili portion of the judgement of the trial court means in English in a nutshell that the offence of the ·defendant set up in the pleadings that he was already adjudged'. the owner of that plot in two· cases of 1993 and 1996 therefore he can not be re-sued on the same issue was i'ound to be inapplicable because after going through the relevant tw-o judgements the trial court was satisfied that the previous suits involved the defendant and the Water Project in which cases the defenda:1t was sued in order te for hirnt,vacate his cattle pen whereas'-here he was being sued for the .. ownership of the entire plot. - So the doctrine of res ·judicata didn't apply to him and he could not benefit from it. The trial - was allowed to continue.starting with the plaintiff~ ~t the. level of the District Gourt·as first appellate court the issue of the res judicata was alsc dealt with in these words; I quote from the judgement of the District Court of Ebeya ·delivered by- the learned I<r. Lyimo (RM.):- 11 After going through the lower court's record, I have discovered tpat this dispute was settled in Civil Appeal No. 13/1993 of Uyole Primary Court whereby the Ward Tribunal Li.ad ordered the appellant to vacate the suit premises. But, the Primary Court allowed the appeal and declared the appellant the rightful ..• /5

. ' r'"' owner of the said plot. - This was on 13/4/930 There was no appeal. Since the-appellant has not been disturbed there was no issue raised hi the appeal that the said plot was the property of C.CM. 11 This way, the first appellate court overruled the trial o.urt' s finding that the doctrine of res judicata did not apply and made the opposite finding that the doctrine of es judicata applied to this case. · I have gone through the entire earlier decisions of the lower.courts:except for the judgement Of the Igawilo Ward Tribunal which was not produced as· ·exhibit in this trial. But there is no doubt that such ·a ca'se d{d exist and it -, .. involved the respondent as the accused in an apparently crinal case although the appeal the,re·or'·to 'the Primary Court was registered as (Dam,;a) Civil A_z;eaN.£..,:,3/199, between 2.?..Q;Jaswaga as armellant and J.VJ£a:l;i;.}vJf. aji Igawilo as the.. .. G_Sj?O,Ed.. From the judgement of the same Uyole Primary c--mrt Civil Appeal No .• 3/1993 the factual background of the casC= is given . it clearly sh.owsthat the respondent Saidi Kasvvaga was. charged criminaly under D2ction ·1a4 of the Penal Code for fouling water wth.the complainant who was Mradi wa Maji Igawilo (Wat~r -Project Ig;-1.wilo). The relevant s .• 184 of the Penal Code provides as follows:- corrnpts Any person who -voluntarily 1-. _ or fouls' / .. _.the water of any public spring. or res2rvi"'"', so ....... •' as to render it less fit £or the purpose for ,,, -; l . ,, . which it is ordinarily used, is.guilty of a misdemeanor." • The alleged fouling acts of the respondent were.that he kept ••. /6

6 - a cattle pen nar a public water pipe connector (BBT) and that his cattle used to trample upon the same water way and break/damage the water way constructions. 'l'he Ward Tribunal of Igawilo found him guilty and fined him Shs2,000/= as w~ll as ordered him to remove the cattle pen or· change the posi tinning of the doors of the pen so that the cattle could, "" get into and out of the pen from another direction far away from the public water course. On appeal to the Primary Court he was acquitted from the convicti<:m and allowed to keep his cattle pen as it was because the primary court held that the water course had been built strongly with hard covers which were not affected by the cattle mo--,;ement on the water course so as to foul it or polute it.· That Ward Tribunal Case and its appeal to the primary court is what- the Distr-ict Court has held that it operated as a res judicata in fhfs "ci:ise ~ ,_ ,. Thc:it '{,1as· ·a 'wrong decision because the parties were different for irt - :the Ward Tribunal . Case the complainant was the Igawilo Water Project versus the respondent Said Kaswaga whereas here the p0rties are the Chatrman of CCM Igawilo Ward Vs. Saidi Kasw,1ga. The Ward :,, Tribunal Case was a criminal one whereas thj_s is a civil case. lforeover, the Ward Tribunal Case :_ rele+.ed a

• and the of subjec;1atter of water fouling L. use Lthe c?.ttle pen· and the keepingLthe cattle in it and sorrounding the pen and water co'urse whereas here the subject matter is abrut + 1 ~- "wner- .. , ... ship of the plot itself. The appellants oral arguments maqe by tr:2· c: ,;rrnan of CCM Igavdlo that there has never been any. ca.::::.- rl:::cided between the two present adversary parties is quite correct. Indeeu,No suit was ever dealt iJetween them so as to amount to , 0 0 • /

• 7 - ' the application of the·· doctrine of res judicata. The other referred case is Civil Case No. 9/1996 between these two parties. This was sued by George::: Kalembwe - as . plaintiff on behalf of CCM Igawilo Vs. the respondent ... Saidi Kas"'?'aga. When so sued the respondent complained to the DRM (District Rsident t-';agistrate) that the suit was res jt\dicata and the D;R.I 1 f ~ directed Primary: Court IV'agistrate In-Charge l\1wanjelw:~ by his letter TA/DM/MBY/5/votiVIII/21 of 19/3/96 in respec-:t of Civil Case No. 9/96 the P.C.tv'. that he . Jvwanjelwsould coordinate with the Uyoie Primary tur to see if the previous cases emana'ted from the same cause of action between the same parties. As a result of this coordination be-i~_een .l".wanjelwa Primary Cc,urt and Uyole . \· . .. Primary Cr:.urt the P.CoIV:. Uyole made a ruling on 27 /3/96 s .· follows in respect of £i:Yl].-_:~~~-..,~~~-2L]J Gor~~.,!,~~-IPE Chairman CCM Igawilo Vs~ Saidi Kaswaga·: ... -.,-.......-:--•.<..C.:. ....... ...&..:---..::.:aa·..a-~ ,L':'"t",.---._,. .• -ae-.--.:,••.::::.• ·•---11 ,,-e!lla .a.·. C. ••.,-,,, __ ,.-,,.,..,:::o \ "Kufuatana na barua ya Hakimu I<f awiclhi ni - . kwamba shauri hili lilishasikilizwa katika J'.'ahakam ... ya rwanzo Uyole yenye mamlaka sawq na hii. Hivyo, haliwezi kuendelea kus·ikilizwa bali al_iyeshindwa kama hakuridhika ni jukumu lake kuomba rufaa mahakama ya juu." The quoted order of the Primary:Court Uyole is to the effect tat (in English) the case had already been adjudicated . upon by a primary court of Uyole which has coneu rret juris- diction with the }:wanjelwa Primary Court· and therefore the case c2n nc,t be adrr:i tted · again. It is upon the dissatisfied party to .appeal to a high.er court, and net to open a fresh suit. undertook Again the l'unicipc:1 Director when h.:: to survey the plot . · . ·1. : for purpose ~f. issuing a certificate of Right of L .•. /8

he Occupancy over the same plot on 16/10/1997Lrebuked the Secretary of CCM Igawilo for disobeying lawful orders of the court i.e. Ward Tribunal Case and Civil Appeal No~ 3/93 ·and.Civil Case No. 9/1996 which ibe said granted ownership cf the plot to the respondent •. All these decisions were gr,'1vely· erronous and purpo.rited to confer ownership of the plot to the respondent whereas there is no such court decision which decided so ever. The preliminary point of the learned Er,. Mushokorwa (Ad-..) that the doctrine o;f resjudicata applied is baseless. No such doctrine exists here. The other argument that the case started from the ward tribunal and cannot come to this court·•on appeal under Section 20 ( 3) of the Ward Tribunal ,·A.ct 198~ which' terminates at the District Gourt .. a~ its· .:n.11al:'Cou:rt o:f Appeal again is misconceived for th_e :present case did not :, , . ,. - start f'rom the Wrd Tribunal but fr.om.the primary court. Al!!o tl:\e case which started from th_e Ward Tribun.al · was a criminal ease and between different parties, _·from the 'present appellant CCI'-1 Igawilo. The main grounds of ·appe_a are· that· there was enough evidence by 6 prosecution w;i. tnesses ,who showed the plot in dispute as belonging to CCM for public liaIJili ty of building a dispensary/clinic etc. but that the·same evidence was kept aside without justification. The 1:earned tir. :tJ:ushokorwa, Adv. has contended that the respondent stayed in that land for over·l9 years without disturbance and has built permanent structures which entitle hirri under the doctrine adverse possession to own the plot in question. In this own defence and on several occasions the ..• /9

respondent doesn't ispute the original owner 0f the plot ' as being CCM Igawilo. .!is DW .1 the respe:ndent testified on oath as.follows: I quote him £rom the primary court procee .. dings of his testimony:w nNi mwaka 1981 ndiyo nilipewa na CCM eneo hilo ninalodaiwa nilijenga nyumba. Nimekaa hapo mpaka 1993 ndipo .nilishtakiwa na ¥iwenyckiti • ~ • .J.., -· wa CCM kwenye Baraza la Kata nikiambiwa niondoe zizi la Ng'ornbe .. 11 In English the quoted portinn· ·means that the respondent. testified as DW.l to the effect that it v.ras in 1981 when. CCM gave him that plot and he stayed on i.t until 1993 when they .sued him in the Ward +ribunal for him to remove the cattle pen • . _:/From the testirr.ony of all plaintiff rs witnesses who were·· ·six the area in dispute is a big one Deasuring not less than one acce. The same area:has been shown in the he sketch p_lan of the Primary Court whenzi•sited the scene. From this map the size of the ara has a circumferencial area of 293 paces or ·293 yards/metres, if we estimate a pace step - as being equal to 1 metre or l y~~d. An acre · So has a circumferenctoJ. area o:f.' 280. yards/paces/netres. L fhis area is more than one acre in size. . In' it th?re are shown the cattle pen and the three ouildings of the respondent built on it leaving still a big empty area in between especially towards the front of the houses'facing the Footpath shewn in the map. The respondent has maintained that he was giV-en the area by CCM himself who has sued him. He testified that the one who gave him was the then Chairman of the CCM in the ' ..

• 10 - i aJ;ea one George in these words: I quote f'rorn his testimony when cross examined by the complainant Yosaya wambungu the prsent Chairman of' CCM of' that Ward:...i nNilipewa na CCM mwaka 1991 na Ndugu Georgena aliyenishtaki · ni GE:Wrge. Sij awahi kuvamia . ki wanj a hicho ~ kuchafua kwenye Nilishtakiwa kuhusu Ng'ombe . . " zizi ••• Cross examined by the 1st gentleman assessor Jailos the respondent testif'ied further that:- n Aliyenishtaki ni Geo_rge akiwa l't,wenyekiti ., wa CCM na nilimshinda ke si ilikuwa ·pamoj a na lcuhamisha zizi parnoj a na mimi. 11 The qu◊ted two portions are the respondent's testimony when cross examined py the complainant and the 1st gentleman assessor Jailos to the effect that it was George while he was the Chairtl)an ot CCM who gave him that plot and later on sued hirr. in .,court :but he won the case both ih respect of removing t~~ c 9 ttle pen and vacating the entire.plot, and that they (CCM) .sued him even in 1993 :for fouling the water. It was not true that it was QC!½ who sued him in 1993 for fouling water. It was true that George as Chairman sued him in 1993 in.Civil Case N0. 9/93 which was termineted by the primary court on ground that it was bound by res-judicata. Of course,I have already held that thGre was no res judicata applica1Jle here. The said George testified as PW.5 and disputed to have ever given him that plot. During his reign as Chairman of CCM of Igawilo there was only a cattle pen and the area was dispensary or clinic for building a . L _. and that in 1991 the respondent '77 . . . ..

' - li - agreed to remove the cattle pen~ It is after 1991 when full in the respondent went iritoLforcelbuilding the houses cattle pen. To start with the issue of the cattle pen from the testimonies of PW .-2 Njendl Kwandani who was the CCl"'.i Chairman for a long time since 1971. He testified that they left that area for public utility of building a clinic and another for building a church. He testified that they invited him or lent him (tulimwazima) to built a f.'attle pen. It was this witness who orally lent the area for cattle pen. PW.3 Elimu s/o ~~alyego is the village Secretary who got the letter of the respondent exhibit A in which the. respondent promised to rerr.ove his cattle pen in 1991. Thi letter has been disputed by the learned v~. Mushokorwa {Mv.) as having notbeen written by the respondent and .. that it was admitted after the respondent had testified., The denial of this letter now is after thought for when.it was admitted while PW.l was testifying he did not disputed it. PW.4 Jailos Nwakingili was the village chairman in 1991 when the respondent wrote the letter remove the cattle pen. promissing to The evidence of the plaintiff strongly established that the respondent was just invited to build a cattle pen from around 1974 onwards. An invittee doesn't acquire was use it ownership of the area. He 'L allowed tci Ltemporaly" 1,, Cattle pen is not a permanent fixture to the land which can form :part of the land. Even in the sketch plan drawn by the primary court the cattle pen from the houses. A cattle pen is a is shewn differently fence _ temporaryLstructure which can be. removed at any time the vendor wants him to ••.• /12

vacate. By-1991 CCM told him to-vacate and he agreed to do so. But, instead of getting out he started to built permanent hpuses. In the testimony of PW.,·l and PWo5 they all had no problem with the respondent keeping the cattle pen there.. But, when he started to built houses and to survey-it for purporses of having a certificate of Right of.Occupancy they took steps to sue him and to remove the surveyers beacons and went to report to te police,- :Municipai':birector, D.c. etco etc. They took steps to thwart any adverse doctrine from applying. Up to 1993 . there w~ ·'still no house built there except for the cattle pen., The de·cision of the primary court in civil appeal No. 3/i993 in which he gave the respondent the wrong impression • that he had been given wne;ship of the land by the said court. The respondents·· us of a portio_n of t_he land for a cattle pen from 1974 owds until 1993 when he was criminally charged did n;t entitle him to have the doctrine .., . of adverse possession apply ta him in his favour because •. the vendor was keen that no use of the land by the invittee was done beyond their permission. for keeping the cattle for butcher business. He used the pen It was a ~en for the temporary use of keeping cattle for slaughtering them for his butchery as per clarification made by the appellant when arguing this appeal. The appellant has explained on appeal here.that there are still up to now 20,000 burnt bricks made at the plot for building the dispensary. Although the story of there being bricks made from the soil of the same plot for building~ clinic doesn't feature in the plaintiff's evidence in the trial court it is a plausible explanation stemming from the public ••c/13 . ·. .•

• 13 -- use ·o-i'- the area for building the clinic. The doctrine oi ad.verse_possession would have applied . -, . to the 3 permanent houses built. But·-the -tw.eJve years had not yet elapsed when the doctrine would be applicable to the appellant. The houses have been built starting in 1993 or at earliest in i991 before which period there was only the cattle pen. By 19.96 the appell 9 nt already sued the_ res- pondent for their vacant po-ssssion of the plot. They ' . .·. . .. were wrongly stopped by the primflry court frorn doing so. it,!n 1998 they repeated again to sue as per this case. Iri 1997 they protested with trunicipal authorities, D.C::. etc; about it and pulled off the surveys beacons on the plot. They exerted their ownership rights over the pl0t from 1991 . . onwards that it is impossible to assume· that - the respondent · or any other reasonable· te·am would have doubted as to who was the owner of the plot or claimant of the plots. The Municipal Direct-::>r, the primary court of Uyole - j,.n its judgement ·of the learned r-';r. Kipornela (PCM) m l998 and the primary court judgerrent. of 27 /9/94 'bcf ore the learned·,· JYl,r., Mwambapa (SPCM) commented about CCM under multi party system hav-ing belong {. to it as . ~ l· - .· - no monopoly on plots "fhich formally used to single party arid ·as a ·state pnrty. Thet:.e comments were unfortunate. ahd un).ferfan-:tec.f because even Wl.der the rrultiparty system any pe-l;i.tical .. prty Ccl.Il 0wn property other and land. In this plot there was no L clnimant of - the plot besides the appellant and recently,the respondent. But, even the· respondent testified 1 to ··have acquired the party from the CCM party •. rtnc,:,.,,c - is .ti"ij issue of --.iJ:t;ipl'!rl,y ,-; ; claims_ over the plot·· m dispute. By the time the resp'on<ieht was building the houses • 0 ./14

-- 14 ... by hooks and crooks and even by the surveying of the plot he was under the unlawful belief that the primary court of Uyole h2d conferred ownership· of .the plot on him from thef original owners CCJY! and frorn·the court d®cision which was not the case.. On a ba;lance of -pro.bability no ~ . . . property on the land in dispute had· been transferred to him from CCM. Both the appellant as per eviclenc_e of PW .1 told him not to built·the houses there in th$ words:- ·1Basi tulienda kwa ·n.c~ mimi na r,~wenyeki ti nae rrdaiwa aliitwa na kuelezwa asijengc nyumba hiyo p@le. Baada ya kuamua D8, huyo aliweka watu wamejenga nyumba usiku na mchana kwa kutumia . ,mabavu. il The quqted portion means in English that the Respondent ·and-'.· · the wftness and the Chairman went to the D.c. {District Commissioner) . and the re_sponden~ was told not to build· the house there. But, he 'then did the opposite·· by putting people to. ·bu.ild the house _by' day· and night &'1.d by force. . '• ~ Frm the above testimonies the respondent had nobody else to back up his claims whereas- all the 6 prose- .. ·· cution witnesses ·showed· that •'the respondent was a mere invit.;ee .. The decision of the two gentlemen asse-ssors Ja:t.'10s· ancl Robati was the ·correct on. The dessenting "" verdict of the primary court rnagistrate the learned. t'ir., Kipome:P,i (PCM) and ·the appellate Resident Magistrate were all erronous. ··· ·· · The decision of the Distri9t Court is quashed. The, majority decision of the ·prirnary cour-t is reinstated. The, lawful owner of that plot is CCM Igawiio Wnrd for the public utility of building a clinic or any other lawful use by ••• /15

• 15 ... the vendor. The Respondent shall remove the cattle pen from the plot. As for the three houses on the plot CCM did_ thing from every L possible to pr-event •·''therr~ being built there. At one stage even the }"unicipal Director ·found reason on the · protests of the appellant and issued a stop order upon the respondent from further developing that land as per·nis letter ·of 6/3/96 with reference J.VJlfC/U.20/11/189 ah'd he was warned not to build any more which he didn't abide at his own risk,. The 'Respondent is not_entitled to be paid MY compensation for his developments.upon the.land of the appellant. He 'is free to negotiate with them if the appellant can take them for their value for public use of CCM or the clinic.- ...... If not negotiable he is free to remove them for' hi's own use ·elsewhere. He is given 16 months to remove them as he deems fit i.e. by plucking out the roofings and bricks et~~·.io"~ another use elsewhere. Otherwise, the appellant will be free to demolish them in order to have vacant possession· of that plot. This appeal is allowed with costs both here and in the lower courts. 8/12/99 :tv'.rwipopo, J. t E. L. K. :MWIPOPO JUDGE 8/12/1999 Appellant:- Yesaya Mwarnbungu - Present in person. Respondent: saidi Kaswaga - Present in person For Respondent: ~~. Mushokorwa (Adv.) - Absent with leave of the cou:r:~. -.• •• /16 ·

· -- 16 B/c.' Iv.irs. Kasubiri. COURT: Judgement delivered in the presence of both parties. Right of Appeal explained. . \ / . . :.. .·.: ~ \ · ) !·;"·,/~~'v . . . ......... E. L .. ·x. MWIPOPO JUDGE· " ' c:'.'J(T MBEYA ,. ! -"c• : . : 8TH DECEt'BER, 1999 " , ELKM/JJM,; ..... ~ f' -: :· t•·i • f, ., . .J;, t• .... ........ . :.:,