Bitrameza Spril vs Tazara (Civil Case No. 293 of 1997) [1998] TZHC 2189 (22 October 1998)

,,, ,,.. 7, \ ·; . ,, ,.- IN 'l'H;~ ',HIGH cmmT OF 1-'A NZ/.NIA AT DAR JGS 3AU-u\M CIVIL CASB NOo 293 OF 1997 pITHAMEZA SP.11IL •••••• • •. • • • • • ••• •.•.•.••.PLAINTIFF C VER,S1JS TJ\ZARA -·• • •, • •·• • • •·• • • • l' • • •• •• •• • • •• •,••,.••.DEFENDANT RULING M.'3.ckanjn, J. The defendant, as a carrier, contracted ,,d.th the Plaintiff to ferry 402 bales of used clothes belonginG to the plaintiff from Dar es salaam to New Kapiri Mposhi in Zambia. On arrival at New Kapiri Mposhi it was diseovere1 the wagon in which the carco was carried had the seals broken and padlocks ·replaced. A physical count i,howed that 218 bales were missine;. ·r - ) , So the plaintiff brou;yit thi;.:; suit claiming liquidated darJ-3.'5es in the sum of US$ 83,580. The suid di::i not go to full trial. A settlement out of court was recor<led on the 22nd May,,1998. The t~~rms of the settlement include the condition that:- "•o• the suit be ·ll'larked.settled by immediate payment of a sun of u.q Dollars FIFTY FIVB THOUSAND only by the Defendants to the plaintiffs through their Advocate in final settlement of the_claim•••" It seems that the defendant did not comply with the candition of immediate payment. In order to execute the decree that arose from the 1'i1;norandum ha.ving been recorded by the Court, the plaintiff applied for execution of that decree. The a:rrlication was allowed c0nsequent upon which a garnishee order t.o attach the defend.ant's 11ank account was made. It would appear that the g8.rnishee order was served on the defend.ant's bankers. 'l'ho defendant has filed this a· 1 )plicationc,for an ordei" by which the garnishee ol'.'der would be withdrawn, effectively staying the execution of th2 decree. · Several reasons have been put forward why execution should be sta.yed. Accord.in,:; to the a.ffida.vit evidence supportin;; t,he appliaticn the garnishee order is unlawful because the TAZA.RI: Act, No. 4 of, 1995 bars execution or a,ttachment agaist any propfurty of the d.efenant. .Seconn.ly, the action t ' . b th l . · . f is f aKen y • e p. a1nt1 f;unneceseary because the defcn~lant haG not re us,3d to satis1y the decree,.

2 ... The plaintiff opposes the application on a number of grounds. It is . . m their evidence the defendant is un'!f: illin 1 :; to honour the agreement because he has now come up with new... pI,'oi)osals well' after the consent 04 . judsment was entered. For instead /ayine: the decretal amount· immedeately, the defenJ.ant wants to stagger the payments m ''.intalments a.11d would want to re-open negotiations regarding costs. So the issue, really, is whether the defend.ant can renege on their obligation to satisfy the decree. In my view no party to the settlement has any option except to comply, for once recorded it became a decree. As such it can be enforced in terms of Order XXI of the Civil Procedure Code. '.l.'he record shows that the plaintiff complied with this order and, quite lawfully, garnishee order was issued in terms of the order this court, Mapigano, J., dated 11th June, 19S :. Mr. Rweikiza, learned counsel for the defendants, countends 1 in effect, that decree cannot be enforced in view of the provisions of Section 85 ?.f " ) Act No. 4 of 1995. Mr. Kalingo, learned counsel, holds a contrary viewt To him the Act establishing Tazara does not everride the Civil Procedure Code. Both arguments seen to- be quire forceful • ., .. .- The. PX:~y,i,ri,ons. o,f B,e:<?J,i:Oil :?,., o{,:te ;T,a1-a~~- A.ct, .N.~ .. •;4. of ,9!?,!,: . 1 having been. enactd ,w,hilE.,t4. ,c,;iyi_l l?roce<iure. Cpd~ was cilr.ea~y .ip. fqrce ·· 1 ·, ,1. · ~ • , · · '-• · , • ~ , ·, I ,. '::\ ·;:' • .~ • . . ...• - '. ., .• ·,' .- • . • . .. • w:i.ll_neces~~Y- ha.:v:~,,an .v:err-idin&{.eff.ect ,ov:e.r the .Giy1l.J;>;ro,9,edtff P,ode. , ... , • J • • • ., , - .• .. • -- ,, • ,. - • • ' i'· . • . ' . 'I - ' ' . , ~ L. ., . . . .½.; i' Arty oth:i;- interp:retation .Mill rend.er .p.,ugatqry ,t1e: p:r:,0yts,iohs o,f that s.e9Uon. ' • •• 'v •• • > ;).,j •,.,. •i ,•' , 1 ~1 • -• ,,.,, •, • ,J:, '',O , '••~ Su_ch q.. ;result will. .he. a.11 . .absur<lity J?arliament .d_i.d .-iJQt ,.inthd. . To m., .. ,., ... ,, ,... • , • ~ V • , ' - - •' ••• I•. ·' • ,, • ' : ·. • •. . • "' • . .... - ., ; \ ., ., , • . i '· ·, ,, . ,. ... , .... h(;)1ev~r. that se,ct.iqn does not .bar. exeoutions of d.ec:rees. n For it provides:- ·," • ' ... ' ", ·• ·- ·.:.,.; •. , '. ' , • , • ; ! ., ~ ·; •• ' ' '. .• .,, • !. . ' : ',.' '.,1 : • ·- ~ ; : •• ·• ~ '. .. ', • ; : ,, 11 85 Notwistanding a.nythinr-; to the contrary: contained in /.-~ - -1_ ·. "1_··_ t:.;•.•.-,' ~,} '.};·· .. ·.·;· ... · .. 4 • .-,:. /),.,: '.\l'',· i,'.,:.·;,:- (..'.t.•.· .. : ::--, ; .. :·,"·. y·! any·written law, where any ,iudgrnent or order has been issued · against t;he· iuthdifty, n '. :icctiti~'/fta6hment or pro-cess ' ••::,: . :.-: -:-r :.;c• ••t,v•:: ·;:•,:-• .. :~;<..l:'''~ •:::.-,,, :f, \i·.i'o ,., ,::••·:,: • !',~ i .,.,), ; u:·; in nature thereof, shall be issued against the Authority or r~ 1·."t " . ,: ., - ... .:. : ,}.,~~ :!::;}'J 1·j..! :.t, ·; •; ,,,-.."~ •~ 1 i.'-/L ,· ..,,. :.: ·h- . . ., . !. J,:; (' against any property of the Authority; but the Managing Director .. · i: · •":""t.: ;-/ t>-·.- !:•.~':\1~;.t. ~~ :.•.J :{ ,··.::·' .. ~ :•: -.·:. :r•.:. l :..: ·;::.--.. 4 1 ". -.,•:·· · ;·i . .s shall cause to be paid out of the revenue'of the Authority such amounts as may, by the jude;rnent or order, be awarded t.t,.~~• ·;,'\ ... .,-,1,,•,\ ) '.':;'•'-· .. : -:>.\t,.:-"\ ; .. ',:,• ~ •::·,, .. •._ ... ·.:.-,lj • -', .. '.''.~ .-~, - ·.f·:;-, ~::.,., ,against the Authori_ty tq he per.so ~ntitled. thereofi 1 • · · '-. ,•,(.::· :, · .,.;·:1 •'";·•:.~ · ~ -: · -~~-~ ,.;·.~"-. ·:,t.'' 1 •·, •. -;,: 't\ ;--:: ,. r" ·. .-ai •• .- . ·.fl l ·. , .. 1 ~l -. .,·· ..... ··:. ·1··. ~ 1 ,.•,, :.•: . ,· . : :·· ,:"....... .i :.:.~ So Section 85 p.~ t\10 parts, each of °i'.'Jhich appears to. C(?m.plement the t •#• • .. ,..,: .-,t:,'.,' .::••·•: '•;· ..i'c-.r,,-"• !l''·/;; •,,••, :••,•:-:r· .. .-•.{.•~ ·••,,: ~.-.;•. :)f"'•-:::• •y other. The first part bars execution to be l2vied on the Authority or ·'' i~ -: .. :-·•-. •• ... ,·.i;·-"!_',-· > .·, · .... _. ,,' .-~~-;y(. _·; ',:.':'i:.::,-1 its property., ·The·second part commands the Managing Director to disburse moneys in satisfaction of judgment ;r orders that are made against, the ~ ·• •••-i , j,)~ <". :-. !"·::•• , _:,r:• 1 •: \ ;,: ;•, :.••: ('.),:.~ ;:,,,,, ''. ., .•, ,,-·,:.: uthority· · · .. ' #' ·-•~ ~- .. ,·. ·-i ... r , , ·, , •. ·, l. "{' '-.- \ , .. : ..

3 It is the second part of section 85 which is applicable heren If, therefore( the Managinrr, Director refus"<'is or ignores or avoids ivto cause to be paid out of the revenue" moneys to satisfy a decree will be contrav.ening the provisior. of Section 85.. These provisions are mandatory, leaving no room for discretio:- So since, by the decree of this court, based on the memora.nrium of settlement. ought to have h.t0en Gatisfied immediately, section 85 requires the Managinr.; Director to comply of forthwith. Upon th0 foregoing considerations I find no sufficient ccinse why the execution of the decree should be stayedo Accordinsly, the application is dismissed with costs. In terms of section 85 the Manarinr,: Director is, by command of this court, is ordered to pay the plaintiff through their Advocate on or before the 17th day of September, 1998 the d ecretal amount of US $ 55 9 000 in full and. final s.?..tisfaction of the dccree 0 Delivered., Jo M. Mackanj a 28/8/1998 Mro Kilingo, Advocate: For Plaintiff Mro Rweikiza 7 Advocate, Absent: For Defendant I Certify that this a true copy of the Original. ! ' (.

4 James•s Let me hasten to say that Lord view does not sanction the creation of ponds which interfere with"other persons lawful enjoyment of their own rights in th0ir own land. ·rn other words, although ev0ryone has a right to make fish ponds ,on his lA.nd, .he has a corresponding duty to ensure that his water does not ·,damage his neig.½.bour's properties. Lerned counsel for'the respondent hs made the point that the applicant has failed to bring his application within. t·he ambit of the case of . and · · Qella Vo ... cas ( supra.) /hat h~, has failed to establish a .:Q.,!'2:,ma facie case with a probability of successo I-f is his argument that the construction of the pond is an ordinary;,. reason':'ble and proper use of the respondent's land. -. • :·He has cited the English _case of •0amb:s_ie \fer Ccan,y_V ~ E_aster Counties . -~ather P,.ls, (1994) 2 WLR 53'.. ·where it was dicided, quoting from the Privy c,,uncil .decision in Ricard$, v/ Lothian, ( 1913) A.C. 263 at 280, that a man ·, .. ·•· ·-.• . ~·· .. ...,,. •, . . •:•. has•·'? right to the :naturaLuse of his land. Mr. Mbuya contends therefore use of the respondent's land. that the construction o:f.pqnds is a natural .I/ ; ., • --;· ,: f . :...,t ... / I have given due ,,.~orisj.deration to arguments by learned counsel., I have 4'11so seriously apprec;i;at:1d the evidence. In his own admission the respondent swears that the pond water is only 5.5 cm from the applicant's wall. 'Ynat in itself poses a danger to that wall. So upon the reasons I have given the application in respect of the following paragraphs in the chamber summons, na.mely,3, 4, 5, 8, 9o 10 1 11 and 12 fails. The application is respect of paragraphs 1, 2 9 6, 7 and 13 succeeds. Accordingly, an injunction is hereby issued by which the responden\ and his agents are restrained from allo\1/ing water accumulated and maintained on his land from seeping and escaping into the applicant's land; in like manner the respondent or his agents restrained from taking away any earth material from the applicant's land. Costs to.abide the result. Delivered. I V;. I /41! I · 1 ·. t.:.:,.,,__.-/l / \ j, __ ,, ~;.. ·---L------ I ;......,.;., --·_.- ---.... L/ Jo M. Mackanja JUDGE ---- 22/10/1998 A~~aces ~ Mr. Rweyemamu: For Applicant Absent: For Respondent