Suing for dinner date

I went on a date with a man I met on a dating app, but I brought my friends along for security. After all, I was afraid of being kidnapped by a stranger I had only met online. During dinner at a popular restaurant, he seemed distracted, checking his phone frequently. When the bill arrived, he suddenly got up and left without paying, leaving me embarrassed and stuck with the entire bill for everyone’s meals. My friends were shocked and uncomfortable, and I felt humiliated. The next day, I discovered he had blocked my number and deleted his social media profiles, which made me feel even more betrayed. I asked my friend, who is studying law, and she told me this is a tort. Now I want to sue him for emotional distress caused by his reckless behaviour. Please guide me.

WV, Dar es Salaam

We understand your distress over what happened. While the incident was undoubtedly embarrassing and socially upsetting, the law draws a clear line between everyday disappointments and conduct that rises to the level of a legal wrong. Emotional distress claims are generally reserved for situations where someone has either acted with deliberate cruelty or has been negligent in a way that foreseeably causes serious psychological harm.

Negligence, in legal terms, means that a person owed you a duty of care, failed to meet that duty, and as a result caused you actual injury. Courts consistently require evidence of both a breach of a recognized legal duty and tangible harm that goes beyond ordinary social discomfort. In your case, the man’s decision to leave when the bill arrived may have been rude and inconsiderate, but it did not involve a legal duty toward you or your friends, nor did it cause a medically recognizable injury.

The embarrassment you experienced stems from an unfulfilled social expectation rather than a breach of law. For this reason, the matter falls within the realm of social etiquette, not a civil tort. If you remain concerned, you may wish to consult a lawyer for further guidance, but legally, the situation does not meet the threshold for an emotional distress claim based on the facts you have stated. Also, next time you night want to consider telling the counterparty that you intend to appear for a date with your friends. This will avoid disappointment on both sides!

Bank reports in newspapers

I often see banks publishing reports in newspapers and wonder why banks are making their affairs public. Isn’t this private information? Moreover, should banks not send these directly to their customers? Why should ordinary people care about these reports? Please enlighten me.

GS, Arusha

Banks are legally obliged to publish certain financial information to promote transparency and accountability. Under the Banking and Financial Institutions (Disclosures) Regulations, 2014 (GN. No. 289 of 2014), made under the Banking and Financial Institutions Act, banks must disclose audited financial statements, fees and charges, deposit and lending rates, among other details. They are further required to publish their financial statements in at least two newspapers of wide circulation within the country. These publications must be made on working days only, meaning they cannot appear on weekends or public holidays.

One publication should be in a Kiswahili-language newspaper to reach the majority of the population, and another in an English-language newspaper to serve investors, professionals, and international stakeholders. This approach ensures maximum accessibility and visibility to the public, regulators, and stakeholders. Moreover, publishing in newspapers guarantees that shareholders, depositors, and the general public can access this information. The aim here is to foster trust in the financial system and allow regulators and customers to monitor the bank’s stability. Therefore, these reports are not private matters as they are part of the bank’s duty to operate transparently in the public interest. Consult a lawyer for further guidance.

Possession of unexplained property 

My uncle, who is a primary school teacher at a government-owned school, is being prosecuted for possession of unexplained property under the Prevention and Combating of Corruption Act. The Court is demanding that he explain his wealth, as it does not align with his current position. He insists he is innocent. I wonder how this aligns with the laws of evidence in criminal matters, since I thought the prosecution must always prove guilt. Please explain this to me.

QJ, Tabora

Your question concerns an important legal principle. Generally, in criminal law, the burden of proof rests on the prosecution, which must demonstrate guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, under the Prevention and Combating of Corruption Act, Cap. 329 [R. E. 2023] (PCCA), possession of property disproportionate to lawful income can lead to prosecution. Section 27 of the PCCA provides that a public official commits an offence if they live beyond their lawful means or own property disproportionate to their legitimate income, unless they can satisfactorily explain to the Court how they acquired such wealth or maintained that lifestyle. Furthermore, if the court finds that property is held by someone closely connected to the accused (such as a relative, associate, or trustee), or was received as a gift from the accused, it will presume that the property is under the accused’s control unless proven otherwise.

Once the prosecution proves that the property is unexplained, there is a presumption that it was obtained unlawfully. The burden then shifts to the accused to provide a lawful explanation. This is known as a reverse burden of proof. Courts have upheld such provisions because corruption cases often involve hidden transactions. Nonetheless, the accused retains constitutional protections that, if he can establish legitimate sources of income, enable him to rebut the presumption. Courts have clarified that they recognise and acknowledge the prosecution’s duty to establish that there is a case to answer. However, while the prosecution initiates the case, the law permits evidentiary burdens to shift to the accused in specific corruption contexts so as to enhance enforcement. Consult a lawyer for further guidance.