Court reverse judgement on businessman

 Faustine Kapama

DAR ES SALAAM: THE High Court, Dar es Salaam sub-Registry, has reversed the

judgment given by Kisutu Resident Magistrate’s Court, requiring businessman Sudhir Lakhanpal to pay his former co-Director, Azim Hooda, a sum of 100m/-, being loan advanced to him.

Judge John Nkwabi reached into the decision after allowing an appeal lodged by Mr Lakhanpal, the appellant, to oppose the findings of the trial court, which had ruled in favour of Mr Hooda, the respondent, in the matter.

“I am satisfied that the trial court erred in awarding the respondent a sum of 100m/-. Consequently, the appeal is allowed with costs in this Court and the trial court. The judgment and decree of the trial court are respectively quashed and set aside,” he ruled.

During the hearing of an appeal, the counsel for the appellant, Mr Joseph Rutabingwa, faulted the trial court in awarding the respondent a sum of 100m/- while the evidence on the record stated otherwise.

He argued at length referring to some contradiction between the evidence and findings of the Court in another case and the evidence adduced by the respondent at the trial court.

The advocate for the appellant expanded that if truly the respondent has advanced the loan to the appellant, then why did he give conflicting account on the dates and instalments before the High Court and the trial court.

On the other hand, the respondent had asserted that the appellant received the amount as loan at the time he was working in his company by the name Regalia Tanzania Limited as a director and had never paid back.

In his judgment delivered recently, Judge Nkwabi observed that it was not certain as to when exactly the appellant did make loan request to the respondent and there was no tangible evidence to establish that the appellant had applied for the loan from the respondent.

He was satisfied that the case of the respondent was tainted with irreconcilable contradictions on the evidence of each respondent witness and the totality of the evidence given during the hearing before the trial court.

“The contradictions put the lies of the respondent to the spot light. The first lie is about when the money was extended to the appellant,” the judge noted.

According to him, one witness, who testified during the trial for the respondent indicated that the money was handed over to the appellant within a short time, but the evidence reveals that it took more than seven months.

He also noted that the respondent claims to be a friend to the appellant, but it appears that the appellant was related to the respondent through Regalia Tanzania Limited.

“It needs evidence for one to accept that a person who works in the same institution is a friend to another, because it is not usually that every person who work in the same institution are friends,” the judge said.

He also pointed out that a witness who tells lies on one fact, should hardly be believed in others unless corroborated in material particular.

The judge pointed out that the falsehood given by the respondent tempted the Court to think that the case was instigated by the fact that the appellant was paid money as his due from Regia Tanzania Ltd, but the respondent indirectly wanted the money back through litigation.

“That cannot be tolerated by this Court because his evidence requires corroboration which is wanting,” he said.

Before the trial court, the respondent sued the appellant for an assortment of reliefs, including payment of 100m/- being the loan advanced to the appellant, his allegedly very familiar to each other and close friends.

He also pushed for 20m/- as special damages incurred by respondent caused by the failure of the appellant to repay the loan in time.

In his written statement of defence, the appellant dead set denied not only being a friend to the respondent but also the claim.

The appellant stated that sum of 100m/- was part of his entitlement in respect of Regalia Tanzania Limited, where the respondent is a director.