Ex-minister wins appeal in 100m/- claim case

THE Court of Appeal has reversed a High Court judgment requiring former Deputy Minister for Communications, Science and Technology, Dr Maua Daftari, to pay a businesswoman, Ms Fatma Salmin, over 100m/- in compensation.

It was earlier claimed that the said 100m/- was given to the former deputy minister in November 1996 for the purpose of procuring a fruit processing and canning plant from South Africa and delivering the same to Mlandizi, in Kibaha District, where Ms Salmin lives.

But in their judgment made available to the 'Daily News' on Friday, Justices Engela Kileo, Sauda Mjasiri and William Mandia reversed the decision given by then High Court Judge Laurian Kalegeya on July 9, 2010, in respect of the matter, saying there was no evidence to support the claim.

“Admittedly, apart from the evidence of the appellant (Dr Daftari) herself, there was no evidence to establish that 100m/- passed hands between (her) and the respondent (Ms Salmin),” the justices ruled, granting a ground advanced by advocate Peter Swai for the appellant.

The justices said the crucial question that needed to be answered was whether there was sufficient evidence in the first place to establish that the respondent had given 100m/- to the appellant. Evidence shows that Ms Salmin had banked on a cheque to prove that she gave the money to Dr Daftari, which was strongly denied.

It was in evidence of the respondent that she obtained the 100m/- which she gave to the appellant from various people.

“Surprisingly, none of the people she listed in her evidence testified in court to support her case. It was clear from the respondent’s own testimony that she did not have 100m/- in her account when she issued the cheque,” the justices noted.

According to the justices, there was no money in the bank and that was why the cheque was not honoured and no wonder why the respondent did not bother to call an officer from the bank to explain why her cheque was not honoured.

“The respondent knows best what happened in this case. The explanation by the respondent that the appellant was told by her bank manager not to deposit such a huge amount of money as she was a minister does not make sense to us and we cannot buy it,” the justices said.

Further, the justices noted, without evidence from creditors who were alleged to have advanced the money to the respondent it was hard to believe that the respondent indeed had the money to pass over to the appellant and even the sum received did not add up to 100m/-.

“Without much ado, we are satisfied, as regards to the ground that the respondent did not prove on the balance of probabilities that she gave 100m/- to the appellant on the understanding that she would secure a fruit canning plant. The trial court ought to have found to this effect,’ they said.

During hearing of the appeal, advocate Swai, who was assisted by advocate Moses Karua, had told the justices that the evidence produced in the attempt to support the claim was hearsay, inconsistent and marred with contradictions.

“In fact, going through the court records, you will find that there is no iota of evidence proving that the appellant was given the 100m/-. Such claims are only contained in the plaint of the suit and was not proved during the trial,” he told the justices.

The respondent, through her advocate, Benard Mbakileki and Mark Lebba, had raised a cross-appeal related to payments of over 38m/- of which the High Court judge had declined to award in her favour during the trial despite being sufficiently proved.

But in their judgment, justices of the appeal court allowed in part one of the grounds regarding payments of 225,000/- being the cost of 15 doors the respondent had supplied to the appellant when the latter was constructing her house in Zanzibar.

They also dismissed the ground advanced by the appellant, challenging payments of 500,000/- which the respondent had paid as school fees for the appellant’s children which the appellant had not disputed. Dr Daftari and Ms Salmin were close friends.

They came to know each other in 1995 when Ms Salmin went to Parliament to advertise her businesses to parliamentarians. Since then, the two became very close.

But their relationship turned sour, prompting Ms Salmin to institute an assortment of claims, demanding a total of 410,092,400/- from Dr Daftari. The latter had consistently vehemently denied the claims in question during trial of the case.

DAILY NEWS TANZANIA: