Black Budono vs Masanja Bundala (H/C Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1989) [1990] TZHC 490 (5 December 1990)

' £JiI:f>BT,., J. IN THE HIGH COUhT Cl<' Tfl.NZANIA . 11.T T1iBOIU~ ', . H/C CIVIL Ai. .. FEttL N0.'9 OF 1989 BLCK dUDONO,. •••• · ••••••••••••••••••• ii.;.'.:- i!;Li,.-..Ri' Versus MAS-ANJa BUNDJ\Lh ••••••• ~ .............. RBSPONDENT . . JUDGLENT In Shinyne~ nesic'ent Mgistrnteh Court, the resnn~~~t, ?--:as.:.nJa !3untbla, successfully suet"' the appelL:mt; Bleck 3uc:r::,zw 1 for frnges for ulicious prosecutinno Disstisfie~, tho p;ellsnt new e~~els to this courto ThE:l respon0ent I s ovid:ice wns th:,t sorre ye1rs ago• ha t·:,ol': nine co•rs· tnd kept -~~l:-fon.,;,i-thfl hor,e stedd of his '!:>rot tier-in-law who liva d in the s.::irre vilL1ge with the .::ippell..lnt-sor:--e three·. t11il0.s :frol"'. the r1=sponr!ent I s vill.'.'lge,. in S.:1l.:.1wo 1-forr., as there w.:.is shortse of psture in the rospondent 1 s uroao One dQy in hach, 1984, the uppellunt seize one of te nine cows n reporte to Sulawe Police Stuticn hat the respon{0nt 1 s brothor-in•law baa stolen thut cow froM the uppellnt. So tte rospndnt's brother-in-Law us arrcstc. lhen te respond~~~ went to inquire ut Saluwe Police htution he w,,s tole' th.;it he i,1..:,.s a thief who had stolen the nppollunt 1 s cow. He was then rrocto anf wos otained for one weekb Theroaftor he ws relese. Police officers tolc 1 him thut thorn was no evirtence, unrl th'c!y tolr't the appellnt an the rcspondnt, that the two shoulrl reconcila. They ..:.lso tc,).(1 the i..ippellunt to return the cow to the resQcr. ... ,mt. The resen( 1 ent tole the police that he coulrl only reconcila with the uppell:,nt if the latter returnef the cow to the rE:s:ponr 1 ont. The ppelL.nt 1 however 1 wnulo not c0-opHr, .... te. The !)0lice then tol.0 the respon,ent to g<.• here .::m, th-1t he i•Jci.llc te. suvreone fter the appellant huf brought the cow to the pclice st;ticn. The .lppell..mt ( 1 i c net return the cow. Inste.-) he •..rer..t tc. Shiny.:tngu !)ol ice St:, ti '.Jn .:.i.n<' reporte(! that the resp un ,·1 cr.:t hi-I<' stolen his four cows .. The respon, 1 ent W.:\S then re-:irrest ec 1 unc• w.:.is ch:lrgef with an eco·nowic crir,•e.. H,e w..is rer.": .. mecl in cust0Jy fur three onths before he ws grnted bil by the High Cc:urt. then the c..i.se W<.lS re..ic1y for her,ring, the c1pμelL.:nt wus su~~onea to give evidence on five ifferent occasicns bt -he never.appeared to give his evidence Cn the sixth occasicn 9 .. '

... 2 ... he respnhdent himself took the sur,mons to the appell.:rnti But ihe a~~eiinnt rfuse~ to .accept the summons, anf_ arrogantly stutec: th.It he would' neyer go to court to give evirlende in tha case. In tlie end 1'he proec.ition h.:.i.t no option but to withi:-'r:.w frc~ the prcseeutinn uher section 224 of.the Criinul ?roco(ure· on th~ ground that•. .. "•he coμlainnnt is reluctant to cc,mo anr1 testify 11 •. The respon<E!nt wu.s then acqtiitterl un,, ischarge. It was the rosponont's case that in renrting the attar t the Salawe ,.in, Shinytlngu· Police stutions, the appellant act-a( r"ola fie n without reasonuhle or probable cuuso an ht as 3 rsult the respon, 1 ent suffero, oninage in tl1-,t uring the peric•- of i his inearcerationj he ws unabie tc cult1yate his farms in hich he •ultivates a cereal c:-1llef 11 Dengu"• In his clefence. 1 the <1p 1 1ella.ht ccn:oeclec thJ.t he reportv· tc Folice at Sula.we e:1nct Shitty,mi!, th_lt tho responc'erit hd stolun his··· cow; !'lnA th-.it ..ill elders in the vilLge s,lirl th.tt the cow b12longec• tc the respon•"en, but he WdS not S.:ltisfierJ an<" so he reμor.tc1,:: the .:.tter to Police. The appell.:.,nt _further co·nceded thut he :.::r.:( his wi tnessas.-; were SU11'·trnned to go :..nd give evic'-ence in · the cririn.til cose at;:iinst the respon.-:ent, !Jut neither he no his wi-eness0s Hnt to give evience. He di,~ not, however 1 s.::ty why they dirl net go to give their evience. On tht evionce, the leJrned trial resifent magistrt~ (as he thea ws) found for the responent anf awrdcd hi rlamages LSSsse at Shs. -lJC, 1 000/=• It was ulso orer~~ th.,t the cow , ... n,1 calv•s born ½y it be roturncd to the responunt, unf the responant ws to hve his costs. T!,0 ppellunt WJS issatisfie n so file this apoel. There is ample t..uthc,ri ty for the proposition that for ~ suit I fer malicious prosecution to succoet, it ust be estalisba () I tbat th plc:lintiff WctS prosecuterl by the defonriant; (b) tht t;J-El prosection enrie in favour of the plaintiff; (c) hJi the ~~osacution was conucte~ without reusonahle or probuble oaus, (cl) th•t ir .. bringing the proscouticn the deftnf:rnt w, s actuutocf by rn:1li•o; anf (e) tht as~ result of the prosubution 1 the plaintiff t~F I suffered <fotwge known ~o law.,.. (See Hpsi.::1 LaL,ta v. G.Z. Mwr;;sctc 1 · ( 1980) TLR 154 ),

s far as the law is conternedt there is said to be a prosecuti0n whore a riinul charge is made before a juicial officer or tri½unal, anf any person who akes or is actively :i.nstrurr-erttl in the m.1I.ing of n cooplaint which resui-t·s in the making of u crird.nal charge is s.:ii< 1 to he u prosecutor. In tho present case~ there rvan be no dispute th:•,t the responfent was prosecutorl b~ tho appcllunt in thut the appellJnt ws activeli instrumental in the ~~king of the crireinal churge ug3ist the responcent. Th(1 question whether tho prosncution enen in· · favour of the respnnfent also presents no· aifficulty. Although the appelLnt wus naive enous-h to suy tht the judgment or fin;1l decision in the 6ril"'in:.tl c.ase ,:.ig;;,inst the responnr-mt was yet to he pronounce(• the eccr "f the riminal cout, which was tondcrc • Exhibit .A., cleirly shows· tht the prosecution ene~ in the cguittl of the respondento The prosouticn 1 therefore, en< 1 ed in fvour of the responcJ.,.mt .. Tho nf1Xt · question to be answerec1 is whethor the prosecution ws ccinuctu0 without rcsonJble or probahle cnuse. Wht 1 then, is the 1;;u:::ning of "reasonable anr' proh<.lble couse 11 ? nglish a,ntb.6l"''itii:s have r.ef incl tho expression as r,,euning un honest belief in the guilt of the accuser. bsoo on u full conviction, foundeo upon reasoT!.:l 1 )le grounf:s-; of the existence of c;.l stute of circurnstu- nces, which, ussuming the~ to be true, woul~ reasonably le~~ any orAinry an prudent mun, plucc~ in the position of n accuser, to the conclusion th1t the person charger 1 WHS probubly guilty of thG cric impute (See Halsbury 1 s Laws of Enln~, Volue 25, at pge '.358 - Jrc~ Eition ). In r1y view th:1t is the L1w in this country also. (Se( Lalntn 's case supra) .. The question hthor or nnt tho accuser ha~ rensonHble an1 probable cuse is a queotion of fact 1 an generally the test t0 be oprlio~ is tho objective test, the suhjective tost only being applie(' w"-en there is rL ·.:: ·' r-, . .; ence to show thr:.t t the proscutcr ··, r.ir net believe his case (Se.__ ~~v:..:tne_:v:_,e A "."" ~.t., 1969) .u. 643') .• In the present csc, the appellnnt erely suspectef the cow to 'he .;9 stolen oneo Fhen Police invost:ig..itec! the matter they fe,un( no evi<ence 1·0 implicute the respon<'ent. In{eeJ I their ' . evionci:: reveale<' that the cow in question belonge,l to the rcspon::nt. The npellnt WJS accoringly told to return the cow to the respondnt, ut the apμell3nt afamntly refused to ~o so. As if ....... /4.

.J. i . ' ... 4 ,·, . ·•' that was not ennugh, the appelLrnt :tta-steppetJ Salawe ilolice Officrs ond went to ake ~ fresh allegation at Shinyudga ?cliee station Wbe ihe day of reckoing am 1 tht-is; the hear{g day, the :anellant efuse to go an~ su½stantia!e his allegiion ' f in court! The appellant in fact si that he no,fonge~ was I ' iterested in the case. It is little uprie that when cro$s• ejtami.ne di t.hi:l ilpl:'ell..rnt conceder! th .• t the respon<"ent 'i-ias not a U.ief anu thut the appellant's cattle were lost ahr.~ hot sto{en. · Thc.t being the position~ it is quite cleai- _that/the appellant knew th.1.:,t this allega tion:s were folsep- Besioes f on. tl1e fac:ts f it is my view th..tt any reasonable an<'! discrct.e man ,tcnil~ s·ay that t!:£ appellant haf no reasonable an~ probahle ·cduse to prosecute the responAent. · '• ...... t I . Vas the aptellant~ then, actuated by·maiice? .te_appellant knaw that the r~~~rindent ws not a thief. . I Police at Salawe told the ., appellant as ciuch. Inc)e.e0, he was orc,ere~. to- return 1 the cow. Even then,-:'. tr1e appella'fit .. went uheac · anc file,~ another cor:iplaint ~ ; . •' . . at a cifferent: polic-e stet ion, a:r:ic he then refuse to give evidence in his case., 'Mal'i.ce.. may be. irnplie.d' f:rorri wHit of reasonahle anc1 . . probale c:'\u se,, 'In. the present case', apar,t ,frotr1 want of reasons:-le an~ probable dause, the confuct of the appellant itself reveals 'malice on hi~· P.art. · ·-;~ I ' In the circustnces; ~herefofe, I respectfully agree with the leLrneJ trial ~3gistrH tht the responfent had cstablishe ~ f j I his case on a preponfernntc ith regad to general that damages which would cl of probaBilities. damages, it is I think, well settler' . . l . sufficient grouhd to support a suit I for rr:alicious pro secut icn dre df thi:'ee kinds, namely 1 •dar.iage to a man 1 s far.,e or 1=,ouJ eputation; dnlllct done to te per.son,, such ' .... as where a r:mn' s life, limb drliberty ls put in ange1 an~ amage t? a man's proportyo (See Ber.,ry v,. British Ttansport.Cpl'!'misio-nt (1960) 3 All £.Rc)22; ahci Lalata 1 s case - supr@). --· . i In the present case, the respondent proved all the three kines ; of aages. He proved that his fume was amaged by reason of the scandalous barge of theft; he prove that his liberty was not only a enangered ut actually lost foifconsieruble period; an he also prove~ loss of property in that he was force~ to spen~ a lot of money in Gefendang the case aguinst him as well as his failure to Conduct his agricultural activities as a result of his incarceration. I now turn to the assessment of general amages. Un<louhtedly, an appellate court has the power to interfere with the asseesent of damages hy a trial c0urto Dut an appellante court is often reluctant to interfere with the assessment of amges by a trial court, just as it is often reluctant to inte~fere with finfings of

• .,r.J, •

• I_ ... 5 ... . ~ •• ·1 fact• ;,. the worc!s 9:f Loi-rl Wright in hd ease of Davies, v. Pow01,L -".d .;t,Jttb,t,.L (1942) all :t.:R. 657, at Page 664, ·' \ '· '' No ouht .::tn appeila:te court i:S always reluctant to interferi ith a finding of the tridl juge on any. q•estion of fact, but it is particularly reluctant to interf er with a finting on darrages 11 "' His Lordship aclderl: "In effect, the court; before it interferes with an awarn of dar.w.ges.; should be sutisfiei:1 th:1t the jur.ge has act ec upon a wrdng · principle of law, or has misapprehene~ the facts, ot' hs for these or other reasons mar.•e a wholly erroneous estimate of the .r1tf:: damag• suffererl. It is not enough that there is a balance of opinion or preference. fhe scale must go own hcqvily against the•figure attacked if the appel,lute . cour-t is- to interfere, whether on the grouh.c. of excess or insufficiency". That passage ws quotewith,apμroval by the Court of Appeal·fo~ ' Eastern Afiica tn the case of,Channan Sinuh an~ Another v. Channan ' . \ - . Sing}1 anrl Another, 22 E--C...A.. · 125, ·an<"' 'by this Court in Lalata Is -------, ----\ .-.-- ,__. I ~ ~ case. (p!').! In the ln'st.:..nt cas, in assessing the dam'ugos, the. l.earne:= • • • l • trial magistr:ite took into accourt-t; all ··the three types of damags whip the responent suffered a- pbinte~ out'above~ nuMely, los~ of.liberty, loss of 1a;ings.as a farinet- 1 an expenses he incurred . , ,· . - no in defending t'1J erirnirial. case. 1 1 .r can; thefefore, aee ;f""eason for int1;;rfering with the trial court Is u·ssessment of dal!'ages. . ·\ •'' •: •.• • I ' • In the resulti this ap?eal fail~ ari~ so_ is here½y ismisae·- court l)lcw. . . ~ ' ';:/,, .,>. , . . / / J/ ,( J /,I-·,, I , .,,... . ; . . ,, . !) ·- J ' • / // /, / // .p . ~ . .._ •/.:'f· ,;';,,,,:, !•_ l', , I(''·/ . I : f. \ ,· /(/(;,.·;;j\ t--/ B; D: . Iiii L 'r1{; ; . ~ \ ?..,r'i "·' .., ... .., N 1 - : _ I .;I 1 ·: !:'.· ·--, •j ])I jUDGL • ( '!-,: .... ,•/r:l . ./ ~ f ,-;. ,. , ·.-:1·.-.,., .,·:·; < r • • ... ·1 ,~~- c> ' I T-al:lora, ,-. .-,::....:.. ;::.Y ✓ .;: . _ 5tl1 Decerc1b.:.i<l :.-. Parties ahsent an~ ~nrcpresontcf. < I