IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ZAMBIA= APPEAL No. 37/2015
HOLDEN AT NDOLA $CZ/8/002/2015
(Civil Jurisdiction)
BETWEEN:
JOYCE NDAVUKA GONDWE
AND
CHRISTINE ZIWOLILE NGWIRA RESPONDENT
CORAM: Mwanamwambwa D.C.J., Hamaundu and Kajimanga, JJS
On St September, 2017 and 13% September, 2017
For the Appellant: Mr. J Nyirongo of Messrs Nyirongo & Co.
For the Respondent: Mr. B.K Kasote of Messrs Chifumu Banda &
Associates.
JUDGMENT
Mwanamwambwa, DCJ., Delivered the Judgment of the Court.
Cases Referred to:
1. Abewe Company Limited __v__Hadow____Mupele Moonga
‘SCZ/8/230/2004
2, Anti-Corruption Commission v Barnnet Development Corporation
Ltd (2008) Z.R. 69
3, Attorney General v Marcus Achiume (1983) Z.R.1 (S.C.)4. Eleftheriadis v Attorney-General (1975) Z.R. 69 (S.C.)
5. Gibson Tembo v Alizwani S.C.Z. Judgment No. 6 of 1996
(Unreported)
6. Hunt v Luck [1902] 1 Ch. D.P p 428
7. Mwenya and Randee v Kapinga (1998) Z.R. 17
8. Nora Mwaanga Kayoba & Alizani Banda v Eunice Kumwenda
Ngulube & Andrew Ngulube (2003) Z.R. 132
4. Eleftheriadis v Attorney-General (1975) Z.R. 69 (S.C.)
5. Gibson Tembo v Alizwani S.C.Z. Judgment No. 6 of 1996
(Unreported)
6. Hunt v Luck [1902] 1 Ch. D.P p 428
7. Mwenya and Randee v Kapinga (1998) Z.R. 17
8. Nora Mwaanga Kayoba & Alizani Banda v Eunice Kumwenda
Ngulube & Andrew Ngutube (2003) Z.R. 132
9. Sithole v State Lottery Board (1975) Z.R. 106
10. Mazoka and Others v Mwanawasa and Others (2005) Z.R. 138
Legislation referred to:
1. The Lands and Deeds Registry Act. Cap. 185 of the Laws of Zambia,
section 34 (1), (c)
Other Works Referred to:
1. Halsbury’s Laws of England 4‘ Edition. Volume 16, Paragraph
1219.
JThis appeal is against a High Court judgment, which found
that the Respondent was a bona fide purchaser for value, and
entitled to possession, of House No. 2 Bupingulo Avenue, Ndola
(‘the House”)
The following is the background to this matter. The House
was owned by Lima Bank. In 1998, Lima Bank (in Liquidation)
offered the house to one Margaret Lubasi, the sitting tenant,
according to government policy on sale of houses belonging to
former parastatals. Ms. Lubasi had worked for Lima Bank for 23
years before she retired. The house was offered to her at the
purchase price of K35 million (unrebased). She suggested that the
price be deducted from her terminal benefits, which were still owed
to her by the Bank. The Bank refused and purportedly withdrew
the offer on the ground that Ms. Lubasi had failed to pay the
purchase price within the stipulated time.
In March 2001, the Appellant was invited by Joseph Chilunda,
one of the liquidators of Lima Bank, to make an offer for the
purchase of the house. The Appellant viewed the house and foundthat it was occupied by a young man. Without enquiring from him
what interest he had in the house, she proceeded to buy it at the
price of K40 million (unrebased).
On 6% September 2001, the Liquidation Manager wrote a letter
to Ms. Lubasi, informing her that the house had been purchased by
“a successful bidder’; that is to say the Appellant. The letter was
copied to the Appellant. By then, Ms. Lubasi had sold the house to
the Respondent using her 1998 offer letter from Lima Bank.
After its purported withdrawal of the offer to Ms. Lubasi, Lima
Bank sued her in the High Court, in cause number 2001/HP/1020,
for vacant possession. The High Court delivered judgment in favour
of Ms. Lubasi on 27 August 2003, ordering that the sale to her be
completed. Meanwhile, Ms. Lubasi had paid into court the full
purchase price, receipt of which Lima Bank had acknowledged.
‘That judgment was not appealed against, but two days after it was
delivered, the Appellant obtained a Certificate of Title to the house.
The Appellant commenced this action against Lima Bank (in
Liquidation) in 2006 seeking, inter alia, an order restraining the
44Bank from interfering with her quiet possession of the house.
Later, the Respondent was joined to the action as an Interested
Party. She filed a defence and counterclaim, seeking an order that
the purported sale of the house to the Appellant was illegal,
wrongful, and null and void. That the Appellant’s Certificate of Title
to the house be cancelled because it was obtained fraudulently.
Further, that Ms. Lubasi was entitled to buy the house and also to
sell it to the Respondent.
In reply to the counterclaim, the Appellant denied having
bought the house dubiously or obtained title to it fraudulently.
After hearing the matter, the learned trial Judge found that
the Appellant was ineligible to buy the house as she was not an
employee of Lima Bank or a sitting tenant. That the house was
illegally offered to her by the liquidators of Lima Bank, who needed
a favour from her as a ZESCO employee. They wanted her to
arrange for reconnection of power to a house which they had sold to
a NAPSA employee.
The learned trial Judge went on to state the following:
35“Applying the cases of Anti-Corruption Commission v
Barnnet Development Corporation Ltd 2) and Gibson
Tembo v Alizwani “), I am of the view that the Interested
Party has proved with very strong evidence that... the
liquidators themselves acted fraudulently in that they sold
the house to the Plaintiff (now the Appellant) without
formally withdrawing the offer made to the sitting tenant.
Furthermore, the sale was done dubiously in that there
was no advert just because they wanted the Plaintiff to do
them a favour. Fraud is also evident in the documents
they filed with ZRA, which had a lot of inconsistencies and
anomalies. I further find that it was improper for the
Plaintiff to obtain a Certificate of Title on the basis of those
documents. It is also highly suspicious that the Certificate
of Title was issued only about three days from the date of
the Assignment and two days after the judgment of Judge
GS. Phiri because normally, the process is quite slow and
takes longer than that. I am satisfied that the Plaintiff
was involved in all this.”It was further found by the Court below that at the time the
Respondent bought the house from Ms. Lubasi, she was not aware
of the Appellant's claims in relation to the house. That this is
because the Appellant was not in occupation of the house and had
not put a caveat on the property. Therefore, the Respondent was a
bona fide purchaser for value without notice and was entitled to
possession of the house.
Dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court below, the
Appellant appealed to this Court. The following are the grounds of
appeal:
1. That the trial Court erred in law and in fact
when it found that the Appellant was offered to
purchase Farm 748 Ndola by the liquidators
because the said liquidators needed a favour
from the Appellant over issues relating to ZESCO
Limited, where the Appellant was working when
no such evidence exists on record.
2. That the trial Court erred in law when it found
that the entire sale process of Farm No. 748,
aNdola by the bank was done dubiously and that
fraud was evident.
3. The trial Court erred at law when it found that
the Respondent was a bona fide purchaser for
value when in fact not.
Both parties filed heads of arguments, which Counsel
augmented orally. The Appellant’s submissions in relation to
grounds one and two were combined. Counsel for the Appellant
submitted that in civil cases, allegations of fraud must be proved
beyond reasonable doubt. That in this case, the Court below
should have looked for specific evidence defining the favour which
the liquidators allegedly sought, and in consideration of which they
offered the house to the Appellant.
Counsel submitted that even assuming that the sale was
fraudulent, there was no evidential basis for the finding that the
Appellant “was involved in all this’. That neither the judgment
appealed against nor the record discloses any fraudulent acts of the
Appellant. The trial Court imputed fraud to her merely because
“the liquidators of the bank needed a favour from her over issues
8relating to Zesco Limited where she was working.” We were invited
to take judicial notice that the Appellant was not a ZRA official or a
Lands and Deeds Registry officer; she did not process her own title.
Counsel referred us to Abewe Company Limited v Hadow Mupele
Moonga (1), In that case, we cited Gibson Tembo v Alizwani™), in
which we stated that:
“If a wholly innocent purchaser acquires a Certificate of
Title, his right to the property is not affected by any
fraudulent conduct of the vendor unless such conduct had
resulted in a third party’s acquiring rights of which the
purchaser has notice”.
It was submitted that the finding of fraud on the part of the
Appellant was “made in the absence of any relevant evidence or upon
a misapprehension of the facts”. In support of this submission,
Counsel cited the case of Attorney General v Marcus Achiume ").
He prayed that we set aside the entire judgment of the lower Court
and order a retrial. We were also invited to direct that all relevant
officers from the Lands and Deeds Registry and ZRA be summoned
to testify on the alleged fraud.On ground three, Counsel for the Appellant referred us to two
passages in the judgment appealed against. Firstly, at page 44 of
the Record, the judgment states the following:
“In this case, at the time that the Interested Party (now
Respondent) bought the property, she was unaware of the
Plaintiff's claim relating to the same because the Plaintiff
was not in occupation of the house and had not put a
caveat on it. The Interested Party is, therefore, a bona fide
purchaser for value and entitled to possession of the
house.”
The second passage is at page 35 of the Record of Appeal. In
that passage, the learned trial Judge made the following finding of
fact in respect of the Appellant:
“It is clear that the Defendant herein (Lima Bank) only
informed the Plaintiff of Cause Number 2001/HP/1020
after she had paid for the house but before judgment. She
was informed that the house was occupied by a tenant on
6th September 2001.”
510According to Counsel for the Appellant, the two quotes above
from the judgment of the Court below show that the Appellant and
the Respondent were unaware of each other’s interest in the house.
That since the Appellant became aware of Cause No.
2001/HP/1020 and the presence of a tenant after she had paid for
the house in full, she was a bona fide purchaser at market overt.
Counsel submitted that the Respondent, on the other hand,
was not a bona fide purchaser for value. That according to DW1,
the Respondent learnt early that the liquidators had refused to
accept Ms. Lubasi’s payment of K35 million. This shows that the
Respondent knew at a very early stage that the house was
encumbered.
The Appellant also took issue with the learned trial Judge’s
finding that “the Plaintiff was negligent for not finding out from the
young boy or man whom she found in the house whether he was a
sitting tenant and what interest he had in the house.” That this
shows that the trial Court seems to have glossed over all the flaws
in the way the Respondent paid for the house but opted to ‘highlight
mathe rather trivial issue concerning the caretaker young man at the
unoccupied premises” when the Appellant purchased the house.
According to Counsel, this is a clear unbalanced evaluation of
evidence. He referred us to the Marcus Achiume Case, where this
Court said that findings of fact can be reversed on the ground of ‘an
unbalanced evaluation of the evidence, where only the flaws of one
side but not of the other are considered...”
In response, on ground one, the Respondent defended the trial
Court’s finding that the Appellant was offered the house by the
liquidators of Lima Bank because they needed a favour from her.
Counsel for the Respondent pointed us to the testimony of the
Appellant at page 407 of the Record of Appeal. The following is
what she had to say:
“Twas based at Ndola business office ZESCO as Divisional
Credit Manager in 2001. My job then was to collect
revenue for ZESCO, so I was in charge of connections and
reconnections. In the course of my duties, I was
approached by a Mr. Chilunda from Grant Thornton and a
certain gentleman from NAPSA who had bought a house
nzfrom Lima Bank. They wanted me to arrange for the
reconnection of power to the house that he bought. I then
explained to them that there was a bill on that house
which had to be paid. I asked Lima Bank to make an
undertaking that they were going to pay it. I then asked
Mr. Chilunda to go and ask Grant Thornton to write an
undertaking before a reconnection would be done. Then
Mr. Chilunda asked me if I was interested in buying a
house as they had 3 houses for sale. Mr. Chilunda was
representing Lima Bank...”
Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Appellant’s
own testimony quoted above supports the trial Court’s finding that
she was offered to purchase the house for a favour. That the
request by Lima Bank’s liquidators for reconnection of power was
directly tied to their invitation to the Appellant to purchase a house
More so that she was not a sitting tenant, and was invited to make
an offer in the course of her employment.
According to Counsel, since the house was earlier offered to
Ms. Lubasi for K35 million, it was odd that the liquidators of Lima
J3.Bank advised the Appellant to raise her offer from K30 million to
K37 million. Strangely still, the Appellant offered K40 million, at
which price she bought the house. That thereafter, in a letter
copied to the Appellant, Lima Bank informed Ms. Lubasi that a
successful “bidder” had bought the house, yet the Appellant did not
buy it through a bid. According to the Respondent, the above set of
facts shows that there was more to the Appellant’s offer than meets
the eye.
Counsel argued that it was on the totality of the foregoing facts
and evidence that the Court below drew the only logical inference
that Lima Bank’s liquidators invited the Appellant to buy the house
for a favour. The case of Eleftheriadis v Attorney-General 4) was
cited in aid of the submission that the Court may draw inferences
from given facts, if it is only such inferences that can be made.
That the finding being challenged was not perverse or made in the
absence of evidence or upon a misapprehension of facts, to warrant
being reversed by this Court.
In response on ground two, Counsel for the Respondent
agreed that fraud must be specifically pleaded and its particulars
ualaid out. That the party alleging fraud must, at trial, lead evidence
on those particulars to prove the allegation to a standard much
higher than a mere balance of probabilities. It was submitted that
in the Court below, the Respondent did plead fraud on the part of
the Appellant, and led evidence to that effect. We were referred to
paragraph 13 of the counterclaim, where the Respondent stated the
following:
“The Interested Party will tell the Court during trial of this
matter that Ms. Margaret Ngoma Lubasi, who was the
recognized sitting tenant of the property in dispute, was
the only one entitled to buy the property and was equally
entitled to sell it to her. The Plaintiff therefore obtained
title fraudulently.”
In defence of the trial Court's finding that the sale of the house
to the Appellant was dubious and fraudulent, the Respondent cited
several facts on record. The following are some of the facts that
were highlighted:
Firstly, that on 6 September, 2001, Lima Bank wrote to Ms.
Lubasi, informing her that the house had been purchased by “a
415successful bidder’. It was Counsel’s submission that by that letter,
the Bank intended to make Ms. Lubasi believe that the house had
been sold by way of a “bid”. That the letter was copied to the
Appellant who, despite knowing that she did not “bid” for the house,
went ahead to register the Assignment.
Secondly, despite knowing that there was a sitting tenant, the
Appellant proceeded to complete the transaction.
Thirdly, Counsel based his defence of the trial Court’s finding
of fraud in the sale of the house to the Appellant on the events
following the judgment in Cause No. 2001/HP/1020. That “the
Assignment was registered on 29% August, 2003, just two days after
Judgment.”
In addition, Counsel drew our attention to DW1’s testimony at
trial. According to DW1, the date on the tax clearance certificate
showed that the certificate was written before the vendor made the
declaration of the price of the house. That this pointed to fraud in
the sale of the house to the Appellant. Further, the Assignment
showed that property transfer tax was paid on 10% January 2002,
116yet the contract of sale was dated 23" January 2002. DW1 testified
that there was no way consent to assign could precede tax
clearance, and tax could not have been paid before the contract was
drawn.
Also pointed out was the evidence of DW2. Between April,
2003 and mid-2006, DW2 was an employee of ZRA in charge of
property transfer tax issues in Zambia. According to him, the date
of declaration by the vendor suggests that it was made “a year after
the document was processed’. This was materially anomalous. He
also testified that although the tax clearance certificate bore his
name, it was not from his office as it did not bear his signature.
This rendered it invalid.
Counsel for the Respondent contended that it was fraudulent
of the Appellant herself to register an assignment using an invalid
tax clearance certificate.
In responding to ground three, Counsel submitted that the
trial Court was on firm ground when it held that the Respondent
was a bona fide purchaser. He cited the case of Mwenya and
47Randee v Kapinga", in which we upheld the principle in Hunt v
Luck, that:
“...the occupation of land by a tenant affects a purchaser
of land with constructive notice of all that tenant’s rights
including an agreement for sale to him by the vendor... A
tenant's occupation is notice of all the tenant's rights. It
means that if a purchaser has notice that the vendor is not
in possession of the property, he must make inquiries of
the person in possession and find out from him what his
rights are and, if he does not choose to do that, then
whatever title he acquires as purchaser will be subject to
the title or rights of the tenant in possession.”
Counsel referred us to the evidence of DW1 that at the date of
the contract of sale between Ms. Lubasi and the Respondent, the
Respondent was not aware of any adverse interest in the house.
‘That there is no evidence on record to the contrary. Thus, the Court
below correctly found that the Respondent was a bona fide
purchaser.
JasWe have keenly considered the evidence on record and the
submissions by both parties. We have also perused the learned
trial Judge’s judgment, the documents and the authorities cited.
‘The issues for determination, in our view, are the following: Firstly,
whether the Lima Bank liquidators’ invitation to the Appellant to
purchase the house was underpinned by a desire to receive a favour
from the Appellant; secondly, whether the sale of the house to the
Appellant was dubious and fraudulent; and thirdly, whether the
Respondent was a bona fide purchaser of the house.
On ground one, the Appellant’s contention is that there is no
evidence on record that the liquidators of Lima Bank offered the
Appellant to purchase the house because they needed a favour from
her over issues relating to ZESCO.
‘The record shows that the Appellant, in her testimony, said
the liquidators of Lima Bank approached her because they wanted
her to arrange for reconnection of power to a house which they had
sold. Mr. Chilunda approached her, as she put it, “in the course of
my duties’, When she mentioned the precondition of an
J19undertaking to pay the outstanding electricity bill, again to use her
words, “Then Mr. Chilunda asked me if I was interested in buying a
house as they had 3 houses for sale.”
We agree with Counsel for the Respondent that the invitation
to the Appellant to purchase a house was directly tied to the
liquidators’ efforts to have the Appellant help them secure a
reconnection of power to the NAPSA employee’s house.
Further, the Appellant offered to buy the house at K30 million
(unrebased), which was less than the K35 million offer purportedly
withdrawn from the sitting tenant. Like the Court below, we find it
dubious that the liquidators of Lima Bank then advised the
Appellant to raise her offer to K37,000.00; even so, she opted to buy
the house at K40,000.00.
Given the foregoing, we refuse to disturb the trial Court’s
finding that the liquidators availed the house to the Appellant
because they wanted her to arrange for reconnection of power to
another house. In our view, ground one lacks merit, and it fails.
320We now turn to ground two. First, we must comment on the
submission by Counsel for the Appellant that in civil cases, fraud
must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. We disagree. Suffice to
mention that no authority was cited in support of that assertion.
Instead, we agree with the Respondent’s submission that in civil
cases fraud must be proved to a standard higher than a mere
balance of probabilities: See SITHOLE V STATE LOTTERIES
BOARD °°).
According to Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4 Edition,
Volume 16, paragraph 1219, fraud “usually takes the form of a
statement that is false or suppression of what is true.” We agree
with Counsel for the Respondent that the trial Court’s finding of
fraud on the part of the Bank is supported by the fact that the Bank
falsely claimed to have sold the house to a successful “bidder’.
That by its letter of 6t September, 2001, the Bank intended to
make Ms. Lubasi believe that the house had been sold to someone
else on the basis of bids.Additionally, DW1 and DW2 gave evidence of anomalies in the
way the vendor obtained tax clearance and consent to assign. That
evidence, too, pointed to fraud on the part of the liquidators of Lima
Bank.
On the evidence on record, we are of the view that the Lima
Bank’s sale of the House to the Appellant was tainted with fraud.
Additionally, we find it odd that the Lima Bank later accepted
payment for the same House, from Ms. Lubasi.
At this stage, the question we must resolve is whether the
Appellant was involved in the fraud. This is important because, as
we stated in Gibson Tembo v Alizwani “', cited by Mr. Nyirongo,
“only the fraud of the purchaser, and not that of the vendor, can
vitiate a Certificate of Title.”
Lima Bank’s letter of 6 September 2001, was copied to the
Appellant. Therefore, she was aware of the false impression
intended to be created by the Bank that the house had been sold to
her as “a successful bidder’. Instead of distancing herself from this
falsehood, the Appellant chose to exploit it to her benefit by
322,proceeding with the transaction, not to mention her registration of
the Assignment.
In addition, the Appellant testified on oath that when the
liquidators of Lima Bank asked her to raise her offer, they did not
say what amount they expected. On the contrary, the letter at page
176 of the Record of Appeal shows, in bold, that the Appellant was
advised to raise her offer “from K30,000,000.00 to
K37,000,000.00". For the Appellant to have lied on oath, she
clearly had something to hide about the Lima Bank’s fraudulent
sale of the house to her.
Further, the Appellant registered the assignment on a false
Tax clearance certificate. The certificate of Property Transfer Tax
was dated 10! January 2002. That was 13 days before 23
January 2002, when she signed the contract of sale of the House to
her. The Certificate of Property Transfer Tax was fraudulent, at the
instance of the vendor, the Lima Bank. We are of the view that by
using it to register the assignment, the Appellant adopted the fraud.
323She became part, and beneficiary, of the fraud. She was equally
guilty of it. Accordingly, it affected her Certificate of Title.
We note that fraud was generally and casually pleaded by the
Respondent in paragraph 13 of her Counterclaim. No particulars
were given, as required by the rules of pleadings.
However, at trial she adduced evidence of fraud, which
touched both the vendor and her, as the purchaser. Here we are
referring to the false Certificate of payment of Property Transfer Tax
That evidence was not objected to by the Appellant. On the
authority of Mazoka v Mwanawasa \), the trial court was entitled
to act on it. Accordingly, we uphold the learned trial Judge’s
finding that the Appellant obtained her Certificate of Title by fraud.
In effect, we find no merit in ground two. It is hereby
dismissed.
Next, we move to ground three. There are two issues in this
ground. One is whether, as submitted by Counsel for the
Appellant, the trial Court should have found that the Appellant was
a purchaser of the House, for value, without notice. The other is
2awhether the trial Court was right in finding that the Respondent
was a bona fide purchaser for value, without notice.
It is not in dispute that when the Appellant went to view the
House, she found it occupied by a young man. It is also not in
dispute that she did not enquire from him what interest he had in
it. Given the principle in Hunt v Luck “, which we upheld in
Mwenya and Randee v Kapinga ", the Appellant cannot be said
to have been a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. We
wish to restate our holding in Nora Mwaanga Kayoba & Alizani
Banda v Eunice Kumwenda Ngulube & Andrew Ngulube ), that:
“In purchasing real properties parties are expected to
approach such transaction with much more serious
inquiries to establish whether or not the property in
question has encumbrances. Buying real property is not as
casual as buying household goods or other personal
property.”
We are surprised that Counsel for the Appellant describes as a
“rather trivial issue’, the occupation of the House by a young man at
the time the Appellant viewed it. Mwenya and Randee v Kapinga
25( is settled law on constructive notice in sale of land transactions.
Certainly, the Court below cannot be faulted for not finding that the
Appellant was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.
On the second issue, the trial Court found as a fact that at the
date of the contract of sale between Ms. Lubasi and the
Respondent, the Appellant was not in occupation of the House and
had not put a caveat on it. The Appellant has not challenged that
finding or the evidence on record to that effect. If anything, the
Appellant’s submission that “both Appellant and Respondent
were unaware of each other’s interest in the subject house’,
acknowledges the fact that the Respondent had no notice of adverse
claim to the House.
Also unopposed is the evidence that the Respondent bought
the house from a sitting tenant, who showed the Respondent a
letter of offer from Lima Bank. We agree with the learned trial
Judge that at the time the Respondent bought the House from Ms.
Lubasi, she was unaware of the Appellant’s claims in relation to the
House. There was no way she could not have known about any
126such claim. We uphold the trial Court’s finding that the
Respondent was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.
This brings in section 34(1) (c) of the Lands and Deed Act, it
provides as follows:
“S. 34. (1) No action for possession, or other action for
the recovery of any land, shall lie or be sustained against the
Registered Proprietor holding a Certificate of Title for the
estate or interest in respect to which he is registered, except
in any of the following cases, that is to say:
(a).
(c)the case of a person deprived of any land by fraud, as
against the person registered as proprietor of such
land through fraud, or against a person deriving
otherwise than as a transferee bona fide for value from
or through a person so registered through fraud”
The combined effect of fraud, as set out above, and the fact
that the Appellant was not a bona fide purchaser for value, without
notice, is that the Appellant’s Certificate of Title was liable to be set
aside, or cancelled, under section 34 (1), (c) of The Act.Accordingly, we uphold the learned trial Judge’s decision in
ordering its cancellation.
Therefore, ground 3 fails too. It is hereby dismissed.
All the three grounds having been unsuccessful, we refuse to
grant an order for a retrial. The appeal is hereby dismissed.
We award costs to the Respondent, to be taxed in default of
agreement.
A
DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE
E.M Her. : CL KASIMANGA
SUPREME COURT JUDGE SUPREME COURT JUDGE
Re