By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

The second respondent’s counter-claim was dismissed but nothing further wassaid about. The general rule in civil cases is that costs follow the event. That is tosay the successful party is entitled to recover his costs unless there are groundsfor ordering otherwise. In this case the appellant was the successful party as faras the counter-claim was concerned, and according to he general rule he wasentitled to recover his costs. The trial judge gave no reasons and we could findnone, for departing from the general rule. On that account we find that theappellant was wrongly denied his costs following the dismissal of the counterclaimagainst him.In the result we allow the appeal. The decision of the High Court is set aside, andinstead thereof we enter judgment for the appellant as prayed in the plaint. Weaward shilling 200,00/= damages for the defamation and shillings 50,00/= for thewrongful termination of employment. The appellant shall have his costs both inthis court and in the Count below, the latter to include costs in respect of thedismissed counterclaimALLY HASSAN MPAPATA v, REPUBLIC(HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (MKUNDEM J, )7 September 1992 – DAR ES SALAAMCriminal practice and procedure – pleas – plea of putrefies acquit whether available where previous proceedings have been declaredand voidConsent for prosecution of an economic offence was given a person who was notauthorized to do so. This point escaped the attention of the trial court, the trialproceeded and the accused and acquitted for insufficiency of evidence. TheD.P.P. appealed to the High Court. Preliminary objections were raised one ofwhich was that he was not competent to do so. The High Court upheld thisobjection and declared the proceedings in the lower court null and void. The356