('HC.') C-TVIL API'EAL NO -----6-0P= ·-1999 c/f Misc- c·;vil Ce.use No •. 1,i9f-··---------------- -- ... .__ (&riginal. Ci.vi1. c·e.se Nt'.'. 30 -of 1998 .of Kigoma District Court) .... SHAKILA MALIKI • • • • •• • • • • ... ... A PPL'.rn ANT' VERSUS . . . • SAID ALMAS •• •• • • • • •• • • RES P(}'Ii'JIE NT' JUDGMgNT • ..,..:::ece,-,,. ------. ====-= ; . "···-· .. ·········- -- --· --·-··· -- This is an appeal from the rulin of the Distriot CouM of Kigoma {Mafut'u R.M. 1/c~)- That c·ourt has ruled that the present applicant is actually an 1.l!l..P.9..QX. in the· whole_ ase. She has pretended to be an objector while in fact she he:s no loc-us--··stand.i in the whole· issue. She has no interest at all ~ . . ~ in the matter,· so the D"istrict C·ourt bas ruled- Rather; the Court has hlld thee is a person beh!nd the . , appellr:tnt pushing her into these matters. And.surprisingl:v -he or-- ··· the fellow is signing docume~ts purpoting thatLs:tie is tbE? , (' applicant, so the leirned 1fe1rldent Magistrate has argued. , . , . .. , The object1.on proceedings were, therefore, thrown overboard. - .. , I • '" Sbakila, . the pffesent a-pplicant, now appeals to this c·ourt'.

# .

The case, at the beginning, looked a hell of a· oonf'usion~ •.. I ; . But; after a ~areful reading of the record, this is what I .. ~ ha.Ve gathered'• It all started with two people sending enoh other to . ,

Court. These were t.t<!i...A!MA; the present respondent; and . - . . . . ·~·-·----------··---- .. Atbuman Matata·. Saidi Altifttts· in that case {D.ff. Kigoma Civil ~':!'. --:. '·;•··.,,. ....,,,...,:.__,=-:1 ., Oase No·. 30/98) bad entered a contract with Athume.n Me.ta1ta. --· . , . . , fo"I' a sale of kerosene. The plaintiff was to get about--3 , I drums of kerosene from the then defendant, Atbuman Matata.

.... ·-.•.. . " .{}TQ) __ gi_Y.,:jl)J>~~.f,J 9,.9. ~ 2 Said" Almas paid some 2900 US Dollars t6 this man called .... .:• ... Athuman Matata. Athuman Mata.ta., as it were., never supplied,,,,. __ . . -·----:------: the kerosene. Re· used the mone:7 to buy a. ehicle. --=-c,--.,.- ... ~ The ... ~ plaintiff sent A thuman flfatata to Court and. got judgment. The judgment reads in partt "It is evident tht a breach of contract by one party necessarily causes an infringement of the contract and rights of the olther party·. In the instant case it is evident that all the programmes or the plaintiff ha.ve been- restrained by the defendant, he was supposed to have his .. fuel since on t;fl.9.1998 but until now· it· is still in possession of the defendant. From the foregoing it is Ct"ysto.1 clear that. the plnintiff is entitled for the rel.iefs he is praying. However the evidence ha-rr estn.blished~;tbat'the plaintiff has 1 receiveg fr.omr:ihe defendant U/D 900., thus le~-ving the balance unpaid U/b' 2000 .... which he is entitled for its recovery. Also there is evidence thnt even when the defendant receive-d fuel he did not g!ve- it to the plaintiff while all the time he we.s in possession of the plaintiff's money wbiop was a purchase price 6or urrsupplied fuel~ 'then the pl~_intiff is entitled. for interest thereof and I d.f:H. award it at banlc rate from _the date the fual.was supposed to be o supplied which is 17.9.1998 to the date " the decree is fully sa tisTi~ d. This means that I hereby enter judgmeht for bhe plaintiff as herein ••' stated together with costs for this· suit. " Sgd.: s. N. Mafuru Re rldent MagistT:ate· ., ;o.12.199a.n .... ___

----··-·•· .... 3 , So, wind' went around. that Mr. Mate.ta had actue.llT,tbought a vehicle, o. TQ.Y.2.t~ .. 9~~! .. f~, with the money that he had o"btained , from the plintiff. S"o, the c·ourit Ordered for the seilJure of ; , -·--·-tbe:-t-.:v.-icle. That is when Shakila Maliki, the present appellant, ------ ·- ·-··· emerged to say that the vehicle was hers - the seizure of the vehicllre, the interesting P:t of __ it, was done when the vehicle was still with the customs. Wh:v was-' it tbere? It iv said that it is a vehicle Mr. Matata was in the process of , importing from United Arab Emirates".',, Now, what then -•· . .,, . -.. .... ._ •• -• -e·•• i,.,._ ,:.,. ..._ ... ..,. .... ..,., -l!La.k. -"••.,· •• s-- • happened after? ?:fr. Mate.ta juggled with the document __ _ at the customa.s office to shm•r1 that it is S"hakila who bad .. - . , imported. it. And, he purpoted to pose there as S-hakila signi°ng ,, a funny looking signature - sugP.esting, of course, that that was . ; But, as luck would seem not to be. , i,;4 th him, the trial Mag;strate discovered that Shakila" s signature was different. The learned. trial Magistrate pestered Shakila to say whose signe_ture this was, but Shakila stayed

• .. , mute. So, the trial Magistrate concluded: "It is-undisputed fact- that the motor vehicibe was under att~chment since on 20/11/98 hut all the time the applicant .

L'shakila..7 did not make any .. objection -· but rather she desi~ned sto:yed. mum while colluding with the judgt)lent debtor to obtain forgetll documents'_, It is no doubt that since on 16/11/98 to the date r.·:· this application was filed ig not less than fifty eight days. Thus it cannot I be said that the applicant was unaware .. of the o-rder to attn.ch the motor vehicle·.n s·o, the trial c·ourt ordered the sale of the motor ... vehicle• This idea that there is a Rentleman behind the whole , ope?'a.tion - projecting the lady, Shakila, to do some·thingf

. . . ~ • "•M•---•-- ••· ------•- 4 ·, oan be gleaned from the following observations made b:v the tri'al 1• : ; I•,, ••.I°/,~ .; f I - , •- Mag'is tra te• in one -oi' her rtil ings, , Sbe says, someiJ.t:lere c · r .·, !· . " •• · - it. ha·a come out · tha.t the. -igntures · . do not belong to the a.ppl ioant but belong to an anonymous person whose interest in I • - 1 i ·, .•• · this case is not revealed. s·1nce on affidavit is a written statement solemnl"!f made on oath as true facts on the knowlede of the applicant who is also the deponent; .. then the only person entitled. •to depose. was Shakila Maliki and she.was the only person to sign that affidait." The trial Magistrate·· then has conclude a:' that. "the~(r·1s every reason to believe that the applicant is, imposed ,for the .., - -.•'".•.•·• .. • . . . ·~ put'pose of obstructing the execution of the decree ••.•••• . ..... ·- - ... This application filed by another person lacking locus standi, .. -· . . - . . ... is found iJ;')competent and is accordingly dismissed. with costs." Shakila has e.ppe a-t'e d befure me to argue the appeal':, , - ·- She did not: expound much, apar-t from only saying tha~ _ ffl_?.~ __ wants he~ vehicle which she said has already been sold to 90.ne else. ~ At first, she told me that she d.id not J;cnow the pe-rson who bad I • ~ # - bought the vehicle, at the auction. Later,however, she chang:d .. the story and said that she knew· the pe·rson who had .?U?.'nt it. . .. ' . . •· ... .. It was one M'I'g·. Mwakulinga·. 'Sh a·dhli tte d that she hs ppealed to the High . .Court i,·1aga.in::t =Kigof'ni·s:tri,ct Court Civil __ Case ..,. ,. ., • • .: l 0 ,:'' •, :·,:•·• / < ' • i, •:, , _.:.::$--• •---:.:.. •- No'. 30/98 .· tf:fut that' case is be tween s·aid s/ ci Altnaf! and .. -~ . :., :: • ~~ ·: . . r : . . - ·;-----...,·- ...... --="' ... -"'S . • - ·- {lJ.h,u@..!L]iA,tJ · 'Again. in that appea, if o ~~ci.phe:s .. the signature of the so called appellant~ it_ is· not that gf_ the ..... •. • ,I ~pplicant. 'fhe applicant;, would have no locus· sta.ndi to appeal in that case,in any case. So, I agree with the trial Magistrate that :there ~are . all indications of abuse of C-ourt process here• I agree with ... . l.

... -··-· , .. -----., ... --·--·· .. 5 he-r :in ·s'triking off the· application. ~~his a-ppea.1 is· ·devoid • of an-y me·ri t. ,It is dismissed ·----·- ·JUDGE ---.: ....... ·,...,_.,, .. '1 AT KIC.OMA. APJ?J.lJ...ht( B.e.'s.o~~~l .. t.l.tt. A bse·nt • -, f. t ' ... ~ ,;,. ·,·. r. - . ; .