New Building Society Bank and Mphonde v Jere (Civil Appeal 1 of 2016) [2017] MWHC 902 (11 December 2017)

New Building Society and Another v Charity Jere Civil Appeal No O1 of 2616 MzHC IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAWI MZUZU DISTRICT REGISTRY: CIVIL DIVISION CIVIL APPEAL NO 017 OF 2076 (Being Civil Cause No 175 of 2016 in the Senior Resident Magistrate Court sitting in Mzuzu) BETWEEN New Bullding Society Mases Mphonde ......ccccseeeucceeeeceeucnueeseenaenanes ee Banik ......cccccsssessrcscensecencnseessenseseseenesseevens 4% Sonellant 2°¢ Appellant are ae om Charity Jere (Suing On Behalf OF CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE D. A. DEGABRIELE Mr. G. K Nyirende Ms. C, Jer Mr A. Kanyini Mrs Msimuko Counsel for the Appeilants Respondent, Unrepresented Official interpreter Court Reporter DeGabriele, f Introduction JUDGNIENT ON APPEAL This is an appeal from the decision of the Senior Resident Magistrate Court sitting at Mzuzu, which was pronounced on 18" August 2016. The Respondent 1% Appellant and Moses successfully sued New Building Society Bank the Viphonde the 2™ Appellant for loss of money in her account and for negligence. Sha Sede oth appellants were not satisfied with atetiad eualinwns’ mga Sip the decision of the lower court. The Obs as decisio wit oe Pa sade 7” ¥ The grounds of appeal by the 7% Appellant are as follows, k c a New Building Society and Aneiher v Charity Jere Civit Appeal No 01 of 2016 MzHC 1. in view of the circumstances of the case the lower court erred in finding that the 1 Appellant acted negligently in handling the Respondent's complaint. 2. In view of the facts of the case, the lower court erred in finding that the money in the Respondent’s account would not have been withdrawn by the fraudster but for the act of the 1% Appellant only, and disregarding the conduct of the Respondent An order requiring the 1“ Appellant to pay the Respondent the sum of ) e o MK407,165 including damages awarded to be paid within 7 days from the date of judgment 18" August 2016 is excessive in the circumstances hence be varied as the court may deem it. The grounds of appeal filed by the 2™ Appellant are as follow: 4 |. In view of the circurnstances. of the case at hand, the lower court erred in finding that the 2°° Appellant was not falsely imprisoned 2. The lower court erred in finding that the 2" Appellant was not maiciously prosecuted 3. The lower court erred in finding that, in the circumstances of the case, the 2" Appeliant was not defamed It is trite that appeals in this Court are by way of iii all the evidence that was before the court below, analysing the findings of fact and the law applied and then considering, in the light of all that took place during trial, whether the court below was within jurisdiction in reaching the conclusion it did. The evidence in Brief On 16" October 2015, the Respondent herein had gone to withdraw money from company of his wife, enaiy » Jere. The Respondent made two withdrawals of MK40 000.00 and Mi ted the ATM card for the 3™ time to premises in Mzuzu in the alances. While ine ATM was workin . The person then, u § person SppROBened t the Respondent and in ff SS, New Building Society and Another v Charity Jere Civil Appeal No O1 af 2016 MzHC insert his ATM card and enter his PIN number. The Respondent did as he was told and entered his PIN number in front of the person and checked that his balance was MK469, 000.00. The person. retrieved the ATM card from the machine and gave it to the Respondent, who, without checking the ATM carc, gave it to Charity Jere for safe keeping. Charity Jere then travelled to Lilongwe and the Respondent remained in Mzuzu. 19" October 2015. The Respondent received a text message on 47" October 2015 that MK60,000 had been withdrawn from his account. The Respondent asked if Charity Jere had made the withdraw and she responded that she had not. The Respondent then . He then received messages of withdrawals on 18 and instructed Charity Jere to go to the 1* Appellant bank in Lilongwe and inquire as to what was happening. On reporting the matter, Charity Jere then found out that the ATM card she had all along belonged to Godwin Hara from Karonga and she told the Respondent. On 19" October 2015, the Respondent reported the matter to the police who referred him back to the 1° Appellant bank in Mzuzu. After ne explained to bank officials what had happened, and asked them to block the account, the officials from the 1% Appellant refused to believe him: and instead asked him to bring Charity Jere and the card. Charity Jere sent the ATM card in possession by Bus in the evening of 19" October 2015 and the Respondent her took it to the 1% Appellant on the next day. The 1°' Appellant still refused to block the account. The last withdrawal was on 20" October 2015 after the matter hea een reported on 19 October 2015. A total ammount of MK275,165.00 was withdrawn from the Respondent's account. On her way to Mzuzu on 22" October 2015, Charity Jere recognized the 2°¢ Appellant as the person who had assisted them and swapped the ATM card. The 2. Appellant had boarded the same bus as Charity Jere. She informed ihe Respondent who alerted the police. The 2° Appellant was arrested on arrival ir e Mzuzu and the Ressondent and his family were asked to come the next day to go 2015 the CCTV footage and view the CCTV at the 1% Appellant. On 23 Ociober S showed that tne from the Respondent’s account. The CCTV was viewed in the present of PWS a police investigator, wno stated that the person who » had been withdrawing the n withdrawing the money New Buiiding Society and Another v Charity Jere Civil Apseal No 01 of 2016 MzHC money was the withdrawals, PW3, arrested the 2"° Appellant and instituted criminal proceedings confirming identifying Appellant. After and him the 2™ against him. The 2° Appellant was then put in custody. The 2°¢ Appellant was acquitted of the criminal charges because the 1% Appellant failed to provide this COTY footage that was viewed stating that it was erased affer 3 months. PW4 was a security officer official from the 1° Appellant who confirmed that the CCTV was viewed. He stated that he was unable to identify that the person who withdrew the money was the 2’ Appellant because he had never seen him before. He also stated that the CCTV for the 1% Appellant banking premises in iZUZU Was not available at the time of the criminal trial as it had been erased. PW/4 also stated that the official report was made on 20" October 2015, the last withdraw was made on the same day for the amount of MK16,000, and the account was also blocked on the same day from Lilongwe. PW4 also emphasiz that the 1* Appellant always cautions its cllents that for security reason, they should not disclose their PIN to ancther person. The first defence witness was the Branch Manager for the 1% Appellant who stated that afier receiving the report of withdrawals, he requested that th account be blocked from Lilongwe, but a further withdrawal of MK16,000 had been made after the matter was reported. He also stated that all cients ar @ warned not to divulge their PIN numbers to strangers. He also stated that CCTV was part of their security measures but the culprit herein was aware of the CCTV and was disguising himself as he withdrew the money. The witness confirmed that the 1* Appellant had expert CCTV readers but they were not involved in this case The second defence witness was the 2% Appellant who stated that he was a mechanic whe had travelled to Liongwe on aonth 16" October 2015. On return to Mzuzu on 22" October 2015 he was arrested by the police who took him to the vaglaties He was searched while handcuffed and his byl ifaw Ese al Shite by ho Bank ATM card was founc in en FS, RA his po } o Q n i New Building Society and Another v Charity Jere Civil Appeal Neo O1 of 2016 MzHC CCTY and he was not the person that made withdrawals. He said that he was released on Bail on 19" November 2015. He was ill-treated by the police while in custody and his business suffered while he was in custody. He states that he was prosecuted and acquitted but that the community do not trust him anymore and treats him with contempt. He is now unable to do his business effectively. ea The Law and Analysis of evidence In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant acted negligently. Lord Denning, as he was then, stated as regards the standard of proof in civil matters in the case of Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 1 All ER 372, at page 373 and 374, that: “That degree is settled. It must carry a reasonable degree of probability, but not so high as is required in a criminal case. If the evidence is such that the tribunal can say: ‘we think it more probable than not,’ the burden is discharged, but if the probabilities are equal, it is not.” Itis trite that he who alleges must prove his case and the plaintiff must prove on a balance of probability that the defendant acted negligently. Was the Respondent able to prove his claim of negligence against the 1° Appellant in the lower court? The 1* Appellant filed 3 grounds of appea! which | rephrase and address below. iL Whether the lower court erred in finding that only the 1st Appellant and not the Respondent was negligent In order to preve negligence, a claimant has to establish a number of elements which include that a duty of care existed between the parties, that there was a breach of that existing duty of care and that the harm or loss suffered by the claimant was a result of the breach of the duty to care, see Kadawire v. ZEUGONE and Another [7997] 2 1ALR 139, The evidence before this court shows that the Respondent maintained a bank account with the 1% Appellant and that through a contractual relationship, the Respondent was issued a card that allowed him to make transaction at ATM machines. The contractual relationship included the allocation of a PIN number which the Respondent was supposed to safeguard and not disclose to strangers. New Building Society and Another v Charity Jere Civif Appeal No 04 of 2016 MzHC The 18 Appellant owed a duty of care to the Respondent, that included that the duty not to disclose any confidential information of the Respondent as regards the Bank Account, and a cuty of care not to act in such a way as fo cause disturbances on the Bank account of the Respon dent without Instructions The facts as disclosed by ihe evidence are that while the Respondent was withdrawing money at an ATM machine, a man walked up to him and decided to help him. The Respondent had not asked for help. The man was able to observe and see the PIN number being inserted and when the transaction was done, ihe man pulled out the ATM cara frorn the machine and handed it over to the Respondent who pocketed the card without checking Respondent's husband was negligent. At this point, the interaction was solely between the Respondent and By the unidentified man, with Charity Jere looking on. Based on this brief description, Q do agree with the 1% Appellant that the Respondent was negligent in his conduct. It is trite that all reasonable persons would do everything in their power to safeguard their savings. The Respondent herein had two options open io him; to effher refuse the help and ask ihe man to rove on, or to call for security guard to remove the man and his unsolicited helo. Prudence woulda nave required the Respondent to take either option, or indeed abort the whole process. After all, in her evidence, PVV1 steied that if it were her, she would not have allowed th nidentified man to tamper with her transaction. | also wonder why the Respondent, being a sickly person, did not have the help of Charity Jere, his wife, but readily accepted the unsolicited help of a stranger? | find that by letting the stranger aid him, the Respondent opened himself to a great risk, which be came a reality. | also find that failure to check an ATM card, which the stranger pullec out of the machine and gave io the Respondent, who proceeded to pocket the same without cl connec is a hallmark of carelessness and negligence. This was a total t him New Building Society and Another v Charity Jere Civil Appeal No G1 of 2016 MzHC Respondent's own negligence and the 1% Appellant at this point is not involved ai all. The second level of the Respondent’s negligence arose after the first withdraw was made on 17" October 2015. The evidence disclose e 3 that afier money amounting to MK60,000 was withdrawn, the Respondent had checked if Charity Jere had made the transaction. On getting a negative response, the Respondent had 3 options open to him. The first option was to request Charity Jere to check and ensure that the ATM card her custody. As seen in the evidence, Charity discovered that she had an ATM card belonging to Godwin Hara on Monday the 19" October 2015. | presume that Charity Jere was aware of the PIN number otherwise the Respondent would not have asked why she was withdrawing money. The second option was to instruct his Charity Jere who was the custodian of the ATM card to go to an ATM machine and change the PIN number. This is a service available to all card users in any of the banks that operate ATM machines. The third option was that the Respondent was to report the matter to the bank and have the account blocked on that day as it shows that the first withdraw was mace at 5:00am, and banks remain open till 11 am on Saturdays. The withdrawals continued on 18" and 19" October and still no action was taker i find that at this stage, ihe negligence was that of the Respondent and his wife and the 1* Appellant was not in any way negligent. fi. Whether the fst Appellant was negligent in handling the Respondent's complaint The evidence shows that the first report was made to the 1° Appellant on Monday 19" October 2015 after a withdrawal, and the 1°' Appellant was asked to block the card and the 1° Appellant sed to do so. According to DW, it was hard to block the account on the date of the report because it was opened in Lilongwe and not Mzuzu. The instruction to the 1% Appsilant’s branch in Lilonawe block the account was issued on 20" October 2015. By the time the account was there was a withorawal of MK16,000 done on the 20" October 2 The found that the 7° Appellant was negligent in the way they handled this particular complaint. | agree entirely. The 1° Appellant breached his New Building Society and Another v Charity Jere Civif Appeal No 01 of 2016 MzHC duty of care by refusing to take reasonable and urgent instructions from the Respondent. The instructions were meant to ensure that the Respondents money was safe from any further fraudulent withdrawals. The 1% Appellant acted negligently, leading to the loss of the MK16,000 that was witharawn on 20th October 2015 after the Respondent had lodged his complaint. The lower court also found that the 1% Appellant was negligent because the 1° Appellant did not manage the crucial CCTV footage, and that this negligence led to the acquittal of the 2" Appellant. The evidence shows that CCTV footage was considered on three crucial stages. The first time was wnen the Respondent went to view CCTV footage in the company cf the police investigator, a securily officer from the 18 Appellant and Charity Jere and the 24 Appellant herein. According to evidence of PWW4 and PW3, that is when the 2™ Appellant was identified anc confirmed as the person who had been freuculently withdrawing money from the Respondent's bank account. From this point on, the 2 Appellant was formally charged with a criminal offence. The lower court found that because this e particular CCTV footage was not made available at the criminal trial, and was said to have been erased after 3 months, the 1% Appellant was negligent. This Court agrees with this finding in part. Indeed the 1“ Appellant was aware that a crime had been committed and the CCTV footage was essential as part cf the evidence at court. As such, the 1% Appellant should have exercised prudence by holding on to the particular CCTV footage by making capies. As s evidence, twe clients of the 1% Appe fiant were being affected by this crime, namely the Respondent and Godwin Jere. | had stated above that | agreed in part because the negiect at this level cannot tt be wholly apportioned to the 1% Appellant. There was the role played by the police investigator and the prosecutor. In a criminal process, any evidence has to be collected and. decumented. There is nothing in the court record that shows that the CCTV footage was in this instance requested, collected and saleguarded as part of evidence in the criminal matter. However, despite the lack of a formal to request, the 1% Appella safeguard any CCT Eon ve iS rn J & New Building Society and Another v Charity Jere Civil Anpeai No 01 of 2016 MzHC s a security officer The second crucial stage was that the 1° Appellant did not use the services of in assisting the investigators. The lower court their expert CCTV foatage re held that the 1%' Appellant had been negligent in that they let who was not an expert in reading CCTV footage to go with the parties and view the same. Furthermore, the person who withdrew money from four different locations and the CCTV footage of each one of these areas was not viewed. | find that it was only the 1° Appellant who had the requisite records to show where the ATM card was used to access the Respondent's account. Indeed, it was 1° Appellant to do all that was possible to ensure that the incumbent on the person who had been withdrawing money was brought to book, bearing in mind that two of the 1° Appellant's bank clients had been affected. | find that the 1% Appellant had a prima facie duty to ensure that the CCTV footage from the other ATM could be viewed as well. The third crucial stage was that the wrong CCTV footage was viewed in the lower court when dealing with a crirninal matter concerning the 2™ Appellant. In this case, the 1° Appellant brought a different CCTV footage that concerned the case of Godwin Hara and not the CCTV as viewed by the parties on 23 October 2015. The viewing of the wrong CCTV footage in court, coupled with the faulty identification description that the person who withdrew money was tall and stout meant that the criminal court had to acquit the 2°° Appellant for lack of clear identification. The 18! Appellant told the criminal court that the CCTV had been cleared after 3 months. A closer examinati on of the court record shows that the incident occurred in October 2015, that the matter was reported to police on 20" s o October 2015, that the CCTV footage at the Katoto Filling Station was inspected on 23% October 2015; and the decision in the criminal case was handled down in June 2016. | am convinced that by the time evidence was being adduced in court contributory negligence between the 1“ Appellant and the prosecutors. In conclusion, | find that thein the circumstances, the Respondent was grossly negligent by not immediately reporting the matter and also by allowing another person to have access to the PIN number. His status as a sickly person coes not Elio atotic Piso ALES ee UPS +f ae a, te a number of options open to New Building Society and Another v Charity Jere Civil Apneal No O01 of 2016 MzHC him which he did not use to safeguard his assets. The 1* appellant was also ligent in the fact that they failed to acted promptly when the Respondent £, reported the matter to them, that they did not use their expert CCTV reader and did not inspect the other ATMs where money was withdrawn when such information was only within their knowledge. The 1% Appellant was also jointh negligent with the investigators and prosecutors in the way CCTV footage evidence was managed and handled in the criminal trial. This court finds that the 1% Appellant was not negligent for the money that was lost from 17" to gt October 2015. The 1% Appellant was responsible for the loss through withdrawals of 20" October 2015. ll Whether the damages awarded can be varied in the final analysis [| find that there was contributory negligence. Both L the Respondent and 1* Appellant were negligent. Based on the evidence on file, place the contributory negligence al 50 percent each. To that end | order that the Respondent be refunded half of the total money lost, which is MK275,16 = K137,582.50. The Respondent claimed MK150,000 as damages for the cost of the hearing the matter. The lower court awarded her special damades of the same MK150,000. The 1% Appellant claims that she should = ) $ D < een awarded costs as pleaded @ w and not special vamsges: | The 1* Appellant argues that the law requires that special damages must be strictly pleaded anc be strictly proven. The evidence on the lower record shows the MK7150,000 awarded was for transport costs and not special camages. | uphold the award of MK150,000. The total willbe M@A287,582.80, to be paid to the respondent within 7 days of this order. ch party will bear the costs of the appeal. Now | move on to the claims of the 2™ Aopellant, Moses Mohonde. He has filed 3 vs Court is called upon to determine Ly nti whether or " L not the appellant was falsely imprisoned, whether or not he was ean, Laren < Coe ote § i New Building Society and Another v Charity Jere Civil Appeal No 01 of 2016 MHC a. Was the 2° Appellant falsely imprisoned in this case? he also states is. The law In order for a person to successfully claim the civil wrong of false imprisonment, the person was arresiea or the evidence before the court must show that imprisoned, by another person, without lawful justification or where a person is prevented, by another person, from exercising his right of leaving the place in false that which imprisonment if he merely conveyed information to the police of his suspicion and into the police acted according to their own judgment by taking the custody, see Matanda v Sales Services Limited and others [1990] 73 MLR An acquittal after the arrested and prosecution was made on reasonable 219. suspicion does not mean that his initial arrest was unlawiul. iohani v Makanai Tea and Coffee Estate [2004] MLR $7 and Mhango v Attorney General civil cause number 199 of 1994 (High Court) (unreported). a defendant is plaintiff liable not for In the case of James Saulosi and-Goodwill Raketi v Bata Shoe Company (Mw) Limited, civil cause numbers 566 and 568 of 1987, where Unyolo J as he was then stated that, It to decide whether this defendant's “The crucial issue in false imprisonment is servants merely stated the facts to the Police or whether they made charges is accepted that conveying one’s own suspicion to the against the plaintiff. take the plaintiff into custody, is not police wha, on their own responsibility, making a charge. However, where the defendant acting through their agents or the the servants order defendant. The test is this: If the defendant's servants made a charge on which i became the duty of the Police to act then the defendant will be liable but they are not liable if they merely gave information and the Police acted accarding to their own judgment” is imprisonment by plaintiff, police arrest the to it The 2°? Appellant claims that the lower court erred in finding that he was mot alsely imprisoned. He claims that he was arrested on the basis of the report made by Charity Jere that he was the one who took her husband’s ATM cara, steal the money. From the evidence, the matter of the theft M card had already been reported to the police and an active investigation was underway by the time the 2™ Appellant was arrested. i. New Building Society and Another v Charity Jere Civii Appeal Ne 04 of 2016 MzHC Again, the evidence of PYV3 shows that criminal charges were drawn after the CCTV was viewed and PW3 who was an investigator was satisfied that the person who was withdrawing money was the 2™ Appellant. Therefore, | find that it was not the Respondent through Charity Jere who started the wheels of police confirmed Jere was Charity suspicion prosecution. The the by of investigator who then charged the 2™ Appellant. This Court agrees entirely with the holding by Chatsika J, as he then, when he stated in the case of Tembo vs Industrial Development Group (7) (1893) Vol 16(2) MLR 865 at 875 that; "It should be nated that it is the duty of every citizen to give information of an alleged commission of a crime to the Police. If while acting on the information so given by a citizen, the Police mount investigations, and the investigations result in the arrest of a suspect, if the suspect is eventually found to be innocent, he cannot entertain an action in false imprisonment against the citizen who initially supplied the information to the Police, If, on the other hand the citizen, instead of merely supplying information makes a charge to the effect that the suspect has committed @ crime, and on the strength of the charge, the Police arrests the suspect, the suspect would have a cause of action of false imprisonment against is subsequently found that the suspect ts ihe citizen who made the charge if it innocent...” confirmed by the police investigator who arrested the 2°° Appellant. The claim for The Academic book, Clerk and Lindsell on Torts, define the ingredients of malicious prosecution as follows: “Essentials of the tort of malicious prosecution: In action of malicious prosecution ihe defendant, thet is to the claimant must show first that he was prosecuied by say, that the lew was set in motion against him on a criminal charge. Secondly, k : s that the prosecution was determined : in ec his favour: thirdly, that it was without reasonable and probable cause; fourthly, proving every one of these is on the claimant”. that if was malicious. The onus of a e b R N or No the tort the that that that that malice, plaintiffs there was reasonable 43 WALR 279 that a he was prosecute d favour, the Appellant was not maliciously prosecuted. New Building Sociely and Another v Charity Jere Civil Appeal No 01 of 2016 MzHe it was held in the case of Matanda v Sales Services Limited and others [1980] of malicious prosecution is proved if the plaintiff shows by the defenca wnt, the prosecutl ion ended in for probable cause prosecution and that the prosecution was actuated by the defendants that is, improper motive. The 2™ Appellant claims that the lower court erred in The evidence on finding the CCTV footage that was shown to the record shows that in the criminal case, court was not the one that had been viewed by the Respondent, the investigaling officer (PW3), PW4, Charity Jere and the 2n¢ Appellant. It was a CCTV footeg® from Karonga. The reason Was that the relevant CCTV footage had been eras 2rd Appellant wes the because it was beyond 3 months. right footage been vi iewed by the lower court acquitted. It hearing the criminal matter, the 2™ Appellant would not have been acquitted. From the evidence on recor d, the prosecution was not malicious. It was premi ised on the belief that a crime had been committed and that the 2™ Appellant was the one who committed the crime. Bearing in mind the evidence before me, | raust find that there is no evidence to the effect that the prosecution was malicious. Was the 2nd appellant defamed in the circumstances of this case? Defamation is the publication of a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society genera lly; or which tends to make them shun or avoid that person. in the case of John Kiwa vs BAT (Malawi) “ Civil Cause Number 322 of 1987 (High Court - unreported) the former Chie is clear that had the scenario, this In e t a Justice Makuta said: - ig clear that the allegation of “In so far as defamation of character is concerned, it theft was false and it must certainly have al fected his reputation. ... The right of each man, during bis fifetime, to the unimpaired possession of his reputation and good name Is re cognized by ih e law. Reputation depel nds on opinion, and opinion in the main depends on ine communication of thought and information from one man to anotier. He, therefore, who directly communicates to the mind of another, rol course of Hings substantially to disparage matiers untrue and likely in the na ay e w e b New Building Society and Another v Charity Jere Civil Appeai No 01 o 2016 MzHC the reputation of a third person is, which the remedy is an action of defamation”, on the fact of it, guilty of a legal wrong, for in out the the had after Charity The 2™ Appellant claims that the lower court erred in finding that under the that Charity circumstances of the case the Appellant was not defamed. He claims a depot and this action ere told the police that the Appellant was a caused injury to his reputation. He also claims that being handcuffed and taken to full view of the people injured his reputation. In the present the Police Station in gre Jere pointed thi ef the evidence shows that The him. police arrested the Respondeni’s account, blication of the fact that he was a thiet, case, Appellant as the person who had swapped the ATM cards and withdrew money Respondent, from through Charity Jere or otherwise did not puplisn any s statement which tended to among right thinking mer rabers of the society. lower the 2°? Appellani’s reputation Indeed, the 2™ Appellant felt embarrassed or put on the spot but that was the consequences of a public ari rest not pu e Furthermore, the matter was then a concluded to be true by the police investigator who instituted criminal proceeding after being satisfied that the CCTV viewed on 234 October 2015 showed that the 204 Appellant was the one withdrawing money this from the Respondent's account. Therefore, | do not see any evidence in matter that suggest that the report to police was untrue, and that it was done with malice with an intention to damage the reputation of the 2% Appellant Looking at the facts in the presen t instance, it failed is my view that the 2°? Appellant to prove in the lower court that he was falsely impn isoned, maliciously prosecuted and defamed. Likewise, | come to the same conclusion. in the final analysis the 2" Appellant's appeal fal | award costs of this appeal to the Respondent Wede in Chambers at mzuzu Registry thie fru diatom ART wut REwcewss ANP Bt ap mewn sik pace Ft6, SOLE of Ue a o Wf Ebeacceae day o% December 2017