Bleck Budono vs Masanja Bundala (HC Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1989) [1990] TZHC 186 (5 December 1990)

' C HlPBTi. 1 J •

• - I ii , I • IN THE HIG11 COUh T Cl'' Ti-1.NZANI1\ 'I HT ',, TH:UOl½i. H/C CIVIL /4_.;-1:EAL NO. 9 0~' 1989 DO O ii . ·, I ; • 'I . I·T·'"' BLCK dU N ••••• - ' ~ :. ~ ••••••• ;; •••••• Ji.;.· J 1!, ,L.;· "l ii Versus· . l ' . . . vsuo 1 ND-T MASANJJ-t BUNDJ\Lh .............. - ••••••••• RI!, • -· Ju .IG NE N,T. I ln Shinynf Resient Magitrte Court, the espon~~tt 1 II I as.:.tnda Sund.:ila t successfully S'9e<" the appell.:mt, Bleck 3ucr.:;no 1 · 1[ I for ~~reges for alioious prosecutinno Dissutisfiet, the apellsnt • ·,1 new epne~ls to this courto i ;
• Th~ responc.ient ts ovidece l'(ns,, thc1t sorr.e • years ugo I he t·::;(:,1-: nine co•rs~- etn'd ket t:H:jihe hme!5tedd of' his ro.thr.:.fn ... law who li V\3 cl in the srre village with the :ippell..lnt-so!"'e three· rrJ.los fror: ol ,. . . ii :1 . the rr;:3sponr:ent' s villag:e,. in Salli.l1'p ',Jure!, as there w..1s -short.se Ii ,1 of pQsture in the respondent's 4rJp. ii[, I One day in huch, 1984, th, appellant seized one of the nine cowo n reporte~ to Sulawe Polic¢jStuticn that the respon{nt•s :::;::::::: a:r:: :.::::::u: h::. l:: ::: : :he 1,:::•:: n:: s p: :a::: wont to inquire ut Saluwe Policri. l:>tution he w,1s tole' tht be \iJ.S !I 1 a thief who hH stolen the nppo]il0.nt I s cow. He was then c.n:-ust_o~ I' •. anf was etained for · one we 1 k .. f: There.:1ftcr he w.:is re1e:..se1. Police officers tole him tht ~~ler w1s no evi(-1enco t and thi!y tol the appellnt an the respond~nJ,. hat the two shoul reconcilo. '
• II :: They ulso tel~ the uppellunt to , 1 ret_ urrt the cow to the respcr:Bnt. ·I , . The respen(ent tol<:1 tho police that he coulrl only reconcil;;; . 'f i I , with the uppell:,nt if the lattcr 1 j returnerl the cow to the !i • r0spon,ont. The Qppell.:int, howe.ver ,wnul not c0-operate • ii ,: The plice then tol~ the responr~ 1 f!n~ to g<: hcr,,c ;in1~ thrit he WC(lld be sur.w,:one~ .::1f'ter the appellant llhu1 brought the ccw to the pclice st.;,tiGn. 11 ':I I I The ppellnt id net retu n 1 the cow. Instea he et ,1 I - tc. Sbiny.:i.nga .Police St,:;ti:m an<' reporte<! that the respu11:-lert h t 1 h . f 11 : < s o en· 1.s our cows.. The r"o s,Jon!'ent u.1s then re-::1rrest e,, . I ~ unc' was chlrgef with art econol!'iC_ 1 j c;ir,•e., I{e Wi.lS re:.Jne(l in custolY for three l!lonths before he :w.1.s grc1nted boil by the I . ' 11 High CLurt. then the cse ws rerly for heuririg, the ppellunt wus suconed to give evidence onlrlve rlifferent occasions but ·he never appeared to give his eidenceo Cn the sixth occosicn~ '.! !i ,I /

; -~ .. ;. !/ !j

2 .... ,II the respondent h:i.melf took the sunAon: 1 s to the appellnt J But j I ' the ~~Jelluni rcfse~ to accept thjsmons, an'arrogahly st.:,;\ted th.c:.t he would haver go to coμrt o give e..vir.1ence in the . I . • 11 I i 'I.I 't ... 'ii t .... easel In tlle end isbe prosecut1bn had 1 no opt on uU 110 w 1,rrw fre: the rJoseci1tio.h un<er section 'k24 t>f the Ci-ireihul jtocuc'ure· Coce (;tl t;1~ grt,und that ·-. 1 !/ // ' . ~ "the co.,,μlain£lnt is reluJ 1 b~~ to comb. aha. teslJ.f'ynj The r'"-lspon<ent wus then acquitte dn,lli r.ischnrge~" . 11 ,. 1 , i, It wo~ the respnnent 1 s case h~~ in repnrtin th 3tar t~ the Salawe unl, Shiny,,ngu Police stJ_, 1 lti 1 />ns, the ap1_jellarit tictid r:,ala I 11 .J fi<e .:'.lnr1 without reasonuhle or probuh 1 ie cause und th..:..t as ,;1 ·I I .. '· result the respon,,ent suffero, amdge'.! in th.,.t uring the pGt'ic•~~ of his incarceration, he W:;tS unable tj ciu1 t:i.:lte his farms in ;hieh he 'L ii oul ti vat es a cereal c:-1lle <' 11 Dengu 111 ,, l ·I In his cefence, the np"t,ellant,1/ c1ncec1e<' tlut he. repo,rt.r• tc Folice at· Suiawe ,m< Shiny,in1r:\ th.,t tho responcent h:.ld stcln his-:• . .._ 'ii ' . cow; ;-inr-1 th,.it ..lll elders in the vi 1 illt1ge sai th.it the cow belongec• . I tc the respon 1 'e11tt but he wns not 1,b.:itisfierl ant so, h~ report;;r: the r. . .:..tter to Police. The .:1ppell.:.1nt iLrther co·nceded th.it he ;.;.r:{ his . 11 . II ~ .I . • wi tne .ss as-; were SUtT·rr'one d to go hd give evic>.enct! in the cririniil · · II ,:! · cose i:lt:inst the :respon,ent t ':>ut ryeither he noS" his winess1::s 11nt ·I. • .. to give evidence. He di nott howevr 1 ay why tbay di pct go to give thelr• Vierlce. :i ij 0 ht evience, the leJne~ ial resifent ciagistrt (as he thHa w~s) fod for the tepodeni a~<l dw~~~od hi~ damages Lsscsse~ · i ' ' ' I • I .. .ii I at Shs l)OOd0/1::.· !t was u1Jci dPde'.ht! tlLt tt,e cow ull(~ <folves ' I II b ' . I . \ 11 I \ 'I q, . ii . • orn ,y it ho returned uo tho espbncnt, anf the respon0ant •s . ' . !j 'I to· :1::1ve_ his costs. . i/ ;' T!-e .::i.ppellG.1.nt was clissatisfi 1 er i :inr' sn file,:l this up1:>e:...l. There is ar.i1;le uutlwrity for1) tie proposition th.:-,t for c suit f 1 . . I I ( ) or ma 1c1ous prosecution to succoer, it ust be estnlishe( a tI,...::it the plc\intiff w"s prosecuted!/ b tho defonrnnt; (b) th..:lt tJ0 · prosection ened in favour of thJ plaintiff; (c) iht the prosocution wa c,_,nuc•~ without reasonable jori probable 0<1us, .< ) thU ir, br;nging tne prosecution the defenf 1 1 nt ws actuated by mliec; 11 I .::i.nf: (e) th.-1t as a result of the pro 1 ecution 1 the plaintiff l",-lF 1/ ' . I (See Hosia Lal.:tt..i v. G.z. Mw,..,sc•to ,: suffered dar.w ge known to luw-,, ( 1980) TLR 154 ). I .1 •. I 3°

,i/ ! I I 6; jl ,· 1 ! l I 1: 1-i.s far us the law is concurnerl ;th½r(-: is saic to be a prosccuti0n whcru a fr-:rirninul charge is b..ide before a jur.icia,l- . · · jj !/ · ·ti l officer o tri½unal, anf any persort Jh1 akes or 1s a ye y instrurrent.:.il in the m.:11;:!.ng: of u c.or:,plai!·nt which resutts i. n the

• a ) r.1aking of a crird.nal ch.:irgG is s.:..ic~ re 1/b<➔ a. pr0secutor.i.'. In thu present cusc 9 th1cre Ci,;in h< ➔ :/no dispute th:-,t the
• 'I 1, respornent was prosecuter: byi tho ,:,Pi 1 p1J.a:1t in th;..1t the uppell..lnt W.:,s t I actively instrumental in tbe r3king 1/of{tbe criinal charge ag3ist . I I, the reso~~ent The qusstion whethc/.r tho prosecution enerl in-· ! :1 . favour of the resJlonent lso Dr0snts~ no fifficultyo Although the . il :i oppellnt was naive enough to sy tva~ the judgment or finl decision in the riin31 case oD,inst the repJn~~nt was yet to be pronounca, ., [f I t!1e :reccr~· <'f the •;::rii.,,ir..ol cou:.t:·t~ whidh was 'te11dcrc~ us Exhibit 11 11 .A.t cleai1y shows thut the prosocuimn enef in the acguittl of ';I :; the respondento 1'he prosecution, t;l1erfore1 en, 1 ed in favour of the responch,mt., I I, ii r1 , The rn!xt ·question to be ;::n1swcr1e(1) is whether the prosecution I, 'I ws ccnuct~~ without resunJlo o~ p}obahle cuse. Wht, then, ) l is the 1;1uning, of' "reasonable .:mr 1rok.1hle ccuse 11 ? English . 11 :: a-ntb6r'i1·es have re:Unct tho expresei.on QS r.oeuning an honest belief 'I i . in the guilt of the accus,-H~ b..isocl &n / 1 u full conviction, fo11rtde~ ,)/ ,1 upon reason.'.l 1 )1c g-rounf:s ~ of the existence of cl stute of circurnstu. ll 1/ nces, which, ussurning thor to be true. woul~ reasonably led dny Ii ,1. orAinry on~ prudent mun 1 pluccd b tho position of n accuser, to the conclusion thdt the pers(Jn (lchrger wns probbly guilt~ of the cric imputo (See Halshury;s LawJ ot EnRlund, Voluwe 25, at pge 1/ I 358 - )rr Ecitibn) ... In "'Y -viow tl1t:; is tho luw iri this country (SefJ Lt2latn 1 s c.:ise supra }o / /I · · also. ------- f ,I I 'I The question h•bthcr or not ·p,o,i .:tccusor h;;,r' reasonable ,tnd probable cuse is a question of ric~, n generally the test tn be uppliucl is tho objective tcst,jto suhjective test only being applief wen there ii i1c1 rv}b 1 ne to show thut the proscutcr i I 1 1 - --- .) r. I'.'! net believe his C;lse.., (Sc;._ .S~.-~~~nt·(y,_.,_f.-::.--.!.l 19(,9) -. 643 • In the pres,~nt C:tSC,; the ar>rl:u.(t1nt. rrierely suspecte<'.'1 the 1J 1, cow to T..,e "'.: s stolen oneo 1-:·hcn l')/1Jl.;1ct! invcstig<.!tec! the watter •1:1 I{ they fc.,un<: no evi(~ence to irr.pliccite!1 the respot1t 1 ent.. Incfotic!, their
• . ll 1 1 - . ev'i enc reve,:1lecl that the cow 1.rt qUes tinn be longe<1 to the r ospcn~•ent • I/ : The apellnt WJS uccoraingly responfdnt, ~ut the appellant I told o return the cow to the •l 1 ! 1 1 t ] - f J t ~ a S if cl( a/ rn 1 n .y L c use( o .o so. I • i 1 / 1/ ,1 ,I 1 11 ;I : 'I i: 1/ i,' et!i'••••/4. i

.. 4 ,I Ii 'I ·i/- 11 ii that was nqt en0ugh, the appell<1nt .st'Ld'stepμeJ Salawe Police ' ,iJ. ' Officers on<! went to l'!'lakn :i fresh, .'.llle:g.i tion at S hiriyaiP ?cl ice • 'I ·' st,:1tion~ 1he·n the day of reckoning I/ caime, that is, the hearing day, the apnellant re£tise to vo anb Jutantiate his alleg3tions ,;,,\ ;..J 'j 11' • in court 1 The appellant in fact s::ii 1 ~ that he rto longer was ii 1, interested in the caseo It is little 1 suprie that when cross- 11 Ii examined, the api-'ell...rnt c0ncede~ thLt , 1 1 the respon<"ent was not a_· tt.iaf 11 .1 'l and tht the appellant's cattle we1e fast and not stoleti. Tht bP-ing the position, it is: quite '! I clear that the appellant knew th;.,t this allegations wero fu1i-se~ Bef;!ioes 1 on the fcts 1 it is my view th"'t any reasonable anr.//ci'iscrote man woul say that t:::£ appellant ha~ no reasonable ana prhble cuuse to prosecute the .. ·II : respcn,.:ient. T . . • !)' : :/ • · I 11' Vas the appeilant. then, actute by· malice? The appellant knew told the ' 1· II . that the rspndent was not a thie1o// 1 Police ut Salawe 1 ,I/ • t t appel ant as rnttcho Inrleecl, he· Wc'.ls·, orere to re urn he cow. . I/ , ven then, the appei1't-e.t w_ent uhe,t nc filerl another cor:iplaint at a ciff.erent polic;:e. station, unc' h then rafused to give evience M . · .· . '. . -'. , 1 1 · ;I ~ i t r ·, . ""·1 , iri 1 hi's''cise.. , alice may oe rnp 1ea LrOl!'I w .. ln o reasona,1 e artc: • • ii 1/ I • , proba½le Cr\ttse. In the present ·cdsei,, apart frorri want of' reasonable .J . . • . 11 Ii an pro!.>able C'1USe, _.t1e"'oncluct or v.e appt:ill',,n1t itself reveals m_lice. on his. purt.l I •• ·, ii i)' y \ · In the c,1rcuws.:-1nces, therefpr~, I. respe_ctfully agree with the le6rne~ tria1 ro3istrate thtit,e responfent had ostablishe~ his cos« on a preponerance of prohailitis. • 1 1 l · l.:'ith regara to general damag'es. it is I think, well settlec. that damages which would 1:>e suffi:/cint ground to support a suit 11 I, for malicious prosecuti0n are of hree kinds naely, damage to .. I : . a man's f.-1me or good re_t>utat1.on; anlj.inct done to t!-'le person, sucn as where a r..;::m I s life, limb orlil!er,y is put in anger; an amage to a man I s propertyo (See e.r:ry i 1 /v .. 1/ British TJ:ansport Co1Tmissi0-n, (1960) 3 All E.R)22; ana Lalatals kase - supro) ' ---• - I . in fhe present case, the rcipdndont pro•ed all the three kirits . . .'I ot anges• Me proved that his foe was damaged by reason of the scanaalous charge of theft; he ptoJe that his liberty ·was not only ii a;, endangered but actually lost :fo-n'cdnsicerable period·; anc' he also . 7 11 : prov(lc. loss of property in that J1e 1 1was force"~ to spen~ a lot of . ,i 'I money in efend4ng the cnse agaihst him as well as his failure to conduct his gicultural acti:1J1c1 as a result of his incarceration. !/ : I now turn to the assessmet bf general rlamages. 'I , an appellate court has the powe~ t~ interfere with the Uncfouhtedly, asseasr.1ent of damages hy a trial ccurto uut 4n bppellnnte court is often reluctant to interfere with theJaJsessment of rlarnugos by a trial if :; court, just as it is often relu6tdnt to interfere with fin~ings of

...

r ac1a .• -the woids of Lot'r- Wright in the dase of Davies v. Powe).l .iuf'f[.Yp_l (1942) uJ.t;,R. 657, at Page 664c ""No doubt n appeilate court is always reluctant to iterfed ith a finding of the trldl jufge on any .t,.\:~ q9es:tioti of fact, but it is pa'r~ fcuiarly t<eltictant

• . . to interfere with a f 1.nting on dan:ages 11 • His Lordship aad8rck '. '. 11 J:rt taffect; \he court, 'before it H1'.trferes with an d.war0 of dah!ages·, sho.tld be sutisfief th,,t the juge has uted upon a wrong principle of law, or has isappahende~ the facts, or has for these nr other reasoh.s ma,•e a wholly erroneous estimate of the .t(i{· ' damage suffere. It is not enough that there is a balance of opihion or preference. The scale must go own heavily against the figure attacked if the , appellate court is to interfere, whether on the grounci bf excess or insufficicncy"a That passag .ws quoted with ap·,16vai by the Court of Appeal for E~~ten Africa in ih case of.C~~~na~ Sinh- an Another v. Channan SitigJ, arlr.._Anotheri 22 .. E.i.i-u.C.....A ... 125, an~ by this Court in Lalatat~
• r· cs (sra)~ . -·- - _ .... -· - . . Iri the· iristnnt ·casl!·i. iri assessing the dainugos, the iearne~ triul tnt.fgistr;:ite. took into hccount all the three types _of damages hic=thi repnnetit Uffrhd as poihie~ out abovej haMeiyj ioss -f lib;!y~ loss ot earhing~ as a rder, an~ bxprises h.incurred . . . · hd in defending the cr:i.min<li base. 1~;. can, 'thefefo¾-e.f aee JF"eason fo·r· inti:iit·eting with the ttiai cdut-t' s assessmertt of at!lags. Iri:tbe·'reElul:t..,t:Jiis' a:pj,)eal fail an<J so is here11y ct:i.smissec' with costs a_ga1'ns· . .-4:H(_· .. _;•.:--- ... '.'-.ap e.J.. knt. Ihi.th · ·,·co. Wt- a. n<l· :.tht -court ½elcw. '· :/·. ~~~ , .. , ·>,/ ., -.r ,/i,J ·,, 1 -l,{:ti:"~~ ·. 17 .-1\ _: ,. :· /ii; ·1· ,/-)1--I··,-.. · · 1 . ;1. .. ,·i,·.- t' '-.-:-~~ ,,. • I ·'1 ( I I ( I p l\it:11:_H{{~ . K\ t,.~ . jt ' ·(! .. : ', ./ .. l:.) 1 ;: '\1,,•;f'- l>/ B4D,· :Hfl·LT1; [.,:' - .. -? ,.,.l -~ 'J' 1 • • 1·:ft •. ti ..... dubtiL -..: .. . .:..""l.::tf:..~~~, .bi.. • T-al:lora ~ . .. -- ;th Dece □ ber, 1990· Parties ahsen an~ ncpresonte~o i l . J'. . r. ; , .. !1, '!