Q&A – 21 April 2014
Immigration too aggressive
We are a foreign company registered and operating in Tanzania. Recently the immigration officers stormed into our offices and started searching and asking for passports and work permits of our foreign staff. The immigration officers were extremely rude and aggressive to an extent that they were threatening us when one of the workers said he needed to go next door, where he lived, to get his permit. Is such a search allowed under the law? Immigration Tanzania needs to undergo public relations (PR) training- are such courses not offered to civil servants in Tanzania? All the action described above has been captured on our CCTV.
JG, Dar
Under our law, immigration officers have power to enter upon any premises at all reasonable times and investigate any matter related to immigration. Further the immigration officer may without warrant arrest any person who they reasonably suspect to be a prohibited immigrant or who has contravened the immigration laws of the land. Also for the purpose of discharging their functions, the law has given power to the immigration officers to stop, enter, board and search any aircraft, train, vehicle, vessel, ship, building, premises, godown, container, boat or any part of Tanzania. The law also requires that any person arrested, searched or detained by the immigration officers should be informed as soon as it is reasonably practicable and in a language he or she understands the reason for arrest, search or detention.
Coming to your question, the search by the immigration department is lawful. What seems to be bothering you is the
way the immigration have approached your company and the aggression with which the immigration officers have acted.
You have a right to be treated properly. Should you believe, as you do, that you were ill treated you have every right to lodge an official complaint with the director of immigration services. Hopefully you have noted the names of the immigration officers. We are unable to answer your last suggestion/question on PR skills but this could also be the subject matter of your query to the director of immigration.
Husband and wife joint account
My husband and I jointly have an account at a bank in Dar. I am the only bread earner in the family with my husband not doing any work spending most of his time watching tv. Unfortunately I have been depositing funds into the joint account for the last 7 years and now wish to draw my money. My husband is refusing to sign on the withdrawal form if I don’t give him half the money. The bank does not want to release the money to me alone. Can I sue the bank?
YH, Dar
You are in a very tricky situation. You seem to have deposited your hard earned money into a joint account. In law a joint account is simply a debt owed to the account holders jointly. There is case law where it was held that the fact that one of the holders of a joint account does not contribute to the account does not prevent that person from having a beneficial interest.
The bank is right in that the funds are jointly held and not releasable to you alone. We don’t see you having a case against the bank. You should however contact your attorneys for further guidance.
Losing an exparte case
I instituted a suit against a businessman whom I contracted to supply certain goods and who failed to deliver them. Because of his absence on the hearing date while already notified, the presiding Judge decided to hear my case in his absence. I was the only witness and during the hearing I presented the contract we signed before an advocate and the Court accepted it as an exhibit. On judgment the trial Judge gave judgment against me on the grounds that I did not adduce evidence to prove that the contract was signed by parties to the agreement. I think the Judge was wrong. Please advice.
OM, Dar
Before a Court pronounces judgment in favour of either party in a civil suit, it is a matter of law that the said suit must have been proved on a balance of probabilities. This principle applies even when the case is heard ex-parte, as was in your case. It is important to note that in our Courts what matters is what is proved and not what you have in your mind or believe to be true.
Not knowing the entire case history, we cannot fault the learned trial Judge on the basis of the facts you have given us. The Evidence Act specifically requires if it is alleged that a document has been signed by any person, the signature or handwriting of such document must be proved to be that person’s signature. In your case, it is notable that you chose to testify alone without even calling the witness to the contract including the advocate you have mentioned. We believe this was what proved fatal.
The fact that the case was heard exparte cannot give you an excuse not to meet the criteria set by law. Your next option is to appeal and suggest you consult your attorneys.