|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
High Court of Kiribati |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
HELD AT BETIO
REPUBLIC OF KIRIBATI
High Court Criminal Case No. 28 of 2004
THE REPUBLIC
vs
ROUATU TEKIREE
FENG JIAN CHOW
For the Republic: Mr Birimaka Tekanene
For the Accused: Mr Banuera Berina
Date of Hearing: 22 & 23 July 2004
JUDGMENT
Rouatu Tekiree and Feng Jian Chow are jointly charged with carrying on unregistered investment in Kiribati contrary to section 18(1) and punishable under section 18(2) of the Foreign Investment Act 1985 in that between December 2001 and April 2004 they (Rouatu and Feng) carried on business in Kiribati without a valid certificate of registration issued by the Foreign Investment commission. On arraignment the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge.
In order to prove the charge the prosecution called two witnesses and formally admitted certain documents with the concurrence of defence under section 126A of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Teuarai Ereata (PW1) gave evidence and testified he is a foreign investment officer with the Foreign Investment Commission at the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Cooperatives. He also testified that one of his duties as a foreign investment officer is to promote foreign investment in Kiribati by encouraging foreigners to invest in Kiribati. The witness also testified that he knows the Red House Restaurant. He recalled having interviewed the two accused – Rouatu and Feng inside the Red House restaurant in December 2003. In the course of interviewing the two accused the witness ascertained that Feng is a foreigner. He also said that Rouatu who is an I-Kiribati did most of the talking as Feng could not understand nor speak Kiribati. During their discussion the accused – Rouatu told the witness that he (Rouatu and Feng are partners in the Red House restaurant.
Rouatu also told the witness that he and Feng have equal share of 50 per cent each in the Red House. This means that each one of them had contributed 50 per cent each towards the start up working capital of the Red House. Feng in the meantime hardly said anything or spoke to the witness. Instead he nodded his head now and then and was present throughout inside the Red House when the witness and Rouatu had a discussion. The witness was then shown a letter of the two accused – Rouatu and Feng. The accused wrote this letter to the witness on 22 March 2004. The letter was put into evidence and marked as Exhibit “P1”. In this letter which the two accused signed, the two accused apologised to the witness for the delay in submitting the required form (i.e. Foreign Investment form) and other documents and explained the reason for the delay in submitting those forms namely that David Lambourne of the Attorney General’s office who is responsible for registering businesses in Kiribati was out of the country at that time accompanying his wife to overseas when they went to see him in January. The other reason for the delay was that the Bank of Kiribati took a long time to process their (Rouatu and Feng) business bank account. These information were communicated to one of the staff of the Commission who told them that he would inform the Commission about the problems. Apparently that staff member had forgotten to inform the commission about the problem during the Commission’s meeting in January. In any case we are now submitting the required form and other documents. Again we wish to say sorry for the delay. Signed: Feng Jian Chow and Rouatu Tekiree.
The witness also confirmed in cross-examination that after he carried out the investigation of the Red House restaurant and interviewed the two accused – Rouatu and Feng, he compiled the result of his investigation into a report called “Reports on Chinese Restaurants” that report was produced into evidence and marked as Exhibit “D1”. At Findings No. 3 p. 11 he reported on Tekiree Tamuera and Red House Chinese Restaurant. The witness stated:
“We got this information from Mr Rouatu Tekiree together with Mr Feng Jian Chow whom we recently interviewed. We found out that:
The business started operating under a work permit arrangement and after having a business licence from TUC.
Conclusion
In general the Secretarial concluded and confirmed that most Chinese employees working in these restaurants have legal work permits, most of them would expire by 2004 ......the Secretarial found out that the Red House Chinese restaurant’s operation which is a joint venture between a local and foreigner is a foreign investment by consideration and therefore should be notified to legalise its business activity according to normal procedure. In connection the Secretariat has verbally informed and explained to Rouatu and Mr Feng about the situation and the likely outcome of the investigation, that they are required to register their business as a foreign investment. In addition the Secretarial has also given Mr Feng the application form to fill/complete.
In light of the foregoing the Secretarial files the following recommendations:
Red House
In the case of Red House Rouatu and his Chinese partner should be asked to register their business activity in the country. It is also noted that of the four Chinese employees employed, three have expired work permits and one has left. These also include the manager who is also the business partner.
In addition the business should be formally asked to open its account with BOK, which it should now be aware of.
In General
The Secretarial is concerned about the fact that some business activities involving foreigners are just using local people to register under a local business/enterprise while in reality they are being operated and run by foreigners. The Secretarial would like to recommend that such business arrangement is brought up to the relevant authorities to consider and study it more carefully should these business arrangements shall be treated as legitimate.
Then the prosecution and defence formally admitted into evidence the following documents:
(a) Foreign Investment Appraisal Application Form is admitted into evidence as Exhibit P2;
(b) Certificate of Registration, under section 13, Registration of Business Names Act 1988 is admitted into evidence as Exhibit P3.
As to Foreign Investment Appraisal Application Form the court attention was drawn to paragraph:
A:7 List of proposed partners, shareholders etc. and also to
E: Viability of the proposed joint investors.
Attached to (a) above (Foreign Investment Appraisal Application Form) is the Nauru Police Force: Police Clearance Certificate (“PCC”) for Mr Feng Jian Chow which stated that Mr Feng Jian Chow is a citizen of the (Peoples’) Republic of China and holder of Chinese Passport No. 146965892. He has been employed by the Nauru Phosphate Corporation from 04/06/99 till date (i.e. 3rd September 2001 which is the date of PCC).
Ioane Namai (PW2). He is 34 years, presently a detective constable in the Police Force for more than two years. However before he was promoted to be a detective he has been a police constable for more than 11 years.
He testified that he recalled the Police having received a complaint from the Foreign Investment Commission about a particular restaurant called Red House having allegedly operated illegally for some years in South Tarawa.
The witness further testified that after receiving such complaint the Police authority assigned the case to the witness to investigate it and he was specifically instructed to ascertain the owners and partners if any of such restaurant.
Having thus been so appointed and instructed the witness then set out to interview the two accused – Rouatu and Feng. In the course of his investigation the witness interviewed the two accused and he then found out from such interview that the two accused Rouatu and Feng are the owners of the Red House Restaurant. He said also that he took the caution statements of the two accused by writing them down himself. He now produces into evidence those statements as follows:
(a) Caution Statement of accused – Rouatu as “Exhibit P4”.
In his caution statement Rouatu explained the reasons why he and Feng were late in submitting to the Foreign Investment Commission (FIC) (a) the required FIC forms which were given to them by the FIC to fill and submit toward the end of 2003 and also (b) Business account of the Red House with the Bank of Kiribati. In the answers he (accused Rouatu) gave to the various questions he was asked by the witness (Ioane Namai) and Rui (DC 66) Rouatu he thought that their business (Red House restaurant) had started towards the end of 2001. And in order to operate lawfully he took out a restaurant licence from TUC (Teinainano Urban Council). And he (Rouatu) was the sole owner of the restaurant. And concerning partnership with Feng Jian Chow their application (Exhibit “P2” is still yet to be approved and they are still under police investigation (Rouatu and Feng).
The accused further stated in his answers to the various questions) put to him by the witness that their restaurant (Red House) has only one branch situated at Tabaonga, Bikenibeu, in which he employed four Chinese nationals and two locals (I-Kiribati).
He pays the wages for all these employees and also pays for their Provident Fund contribution. This was done towards the end of 2003. The same employees had also paid income tax from the commencement of the business (Red House).
The accused also stated that Feng and Tekiree Tamuera (Rouatu’s natural father when he was still alive) were managers of the Red House restaurant. And as for partnership with Feng is concerned he decided to do this before the end of last year (2003).
The accused also stated that they haven’t formed a partnership yet but have applied to FIC to form one under which partnership he (Rouatu) and Feng would contribute 50 per cent each to the partnership when established. After the accused Rouatu’s caution statement was admitted into evidence then (b) the caution statement of the accused – Feng Jian Chow was then admitted into evidence as Exhibit “P5”.
In his caution statement the accused Feng blamed his partner Rouatu for the delay in submitting on time the FIC forms which they have to submit to the FIC. In the answers to the questions which the witness put to him during interview the accused Feng stated that the Red House restaurant had first started to operate in December 2001 and at the time of the interview there were two Chinese and two local employees to whom he paid as wages $200 per month and also overtime.
The accused Feng also stated in his answer to Question 7 that the accused Rouatu is his partner and that his share (Feng) of the partnership is 50 per cent.
Feng also stated in his answer to question 9 that he paid rent for the building in which the Red House operates as a restaurant in the sum of $300 per month.
In cross-examination the witness said he interviewed the accused Feng in English as he (Feng) so chose after he asked him as to the language he wished to be interviewed with.
He also admitted in cross-examination that Feng’s English is not very good however he was not concerned about it as his conversation with Feng went well and didn’t have any problem.
When he took Feng’s caution statement he said that he wrote down what he understood Feng had said to him.
The witness however never thought of getting an interpreter for Feng when he interviewed him or took his caution statement.
That concluded the case for the prosecution.
The accused then elected to give evidence themselves without calling any evidence or witnesses.
Rouatu Tekiree (one of the two accused). He is 34 years old. He testified he is the owner of the Red House restaurant which first started operating as a business in South Tarawa in December 2001. He also said that he had to take out a “Business Licence Certificate” from Teinainano Urban Council ((‘TUC”) and also paid for it in order that the Red House would operate as a business in South Tarawa jurisdiction (see Exhibit “D2”). He also said that he had taken out similar licences for the Red House for previous years from TUC. The accused was then shown Exhibit “P3” and was referred in particular to an attachment “Form 2 Declaration” at the bottom of the page immediately below paragraph 5 at the first column on the left hand side where the names Rouatu Tekiree and Feng Jian Chow appear as partners in the firm.
After he was shown Exhibit “P3” the accused Rouatu further testified that his name and Feng’s name appear as partners in the firm appear in Form 2 Declaration of Exhibit P3 (at the bottom of the page immediately below paragraph 5 at first column on the left hand side) because he and Feng were going to apply to FIC to register as a partnership after they (Rouatu and Feng) were advised by Teuarai (PW1) to register with Foreign Investment Commission (FIC) as a foreign enterprise.
Rouatu further testified that Teuarai (PW1) told them too that once they (Rouatu and Feng) register their business with FIC then they wouldn’t have much problem as FIC would then look after them.
Rouatu testified also that Feng was involved in the business (Red House) as a manager and he (Feng) has a Contract of Service with Rouatu as a manager of the Red House (see Exhibit D3) for the year 2002.
Rouatu testified also that he had applied to Immigration for Feng’s work permit in Kiribati which ordinarily may take four to five months to process but Teuarai (PW1) told them (Rouatu and Feng) that once they are registered with FIC then FIC would take care of the work permit.
Under cross-examination Rouatu admitted having applied to FIC to register their business as a foreign enterprise because they had been advised to do so by FIC officer (Teuarai).
Rouatu also stated during cross-examination that he is presently employed as an electrician in the Power House and he is paid $200 a fortnight. He also stated under cross-examination that in order to commence the operation of the Red House as a restaurant he has to spend between $30,000 to $40,000.
He also stated in cross-examination that he did not have to take out a loan in order to raise the $30,000 or so as his father, Tekiree Tamuera who was once the Speaker of Parliament of Kiribati, had been able to lend him (Rouatu) the money from his (Tekiree Tamuera) Provident Fund contributions.
The next defence witness is accused Feng Jian Chow (DW1). He is aged 35. He testified that he knew the Red House restaurant whose owner is Rouatu Tekiree. He himself work there as a cook and he is paid by Rouatu for the work he does there.
He also testified that what he meant by paragraph 2 at page 27 of Exhibit “P5” was that his work permit has expired and it is Rouatu’s responsibility to renew it.
Feng further testified that what he meant in Question 7 where he referred to Rouatu as a partner and a share of 50% and 50% is a future reference to FIC after it accepts or approves their application to register as a partnership of a foreign enterprise (i.e. Rouatu and Feng).
Feng also testified that Rouatu as his employer pays him $300 per month. Feng further testified that the building of Red House Restaurant is owned by an I-Kiribati.
Feng also testified that before the Red House Restaurant started operating as a restaurant he had to carry out a number of jobs around the restaurant including renovating of the building. For these odd jobs Rouatu paid him for them and if the work is urgent then he (Feng) used his own money to buy the materials and upon completion of the urgent work he (Feng) would ask Rouatu to reimburse him.
That concludes the case of the defence.
I then heard addresses from counsel for the prosecution Mr B Tekanene and counsel for the accused Mr B Berina.
In his address counsel for the prosecution submits that from the evidence the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had breached section 18(1) and (2) of the Foreign Investment Act 1985.
Counsel for the defence Mr Berina on the other hand submits that when “viewed as whole the case for the prosecution has not been made out beyond reasonable doubt. They (prosecution) have sought to rely on the documents of the accused but can offer no evidence to support their contention that the documents are in fact admissions.
On the contrary the accused, although they do not need to prove their innocence, have explained what they meant in the documents and they have supported that by telling the court that –
The prosecution has not offered any evidence contrary to what is set out in 1-7 above.
As the burden rests on the prosecution from the beginning to end it is respectfully submitted that the prosecution has not discharged the onus placed upon it.
Before I consider the issues I remind myself that the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt remains on the prosecution from first to last. It must prove the charge, and each element of the charge beyond reasonable doubt and if it fails to do so then the accused are entitled to be acquitted. There is no onus on the accused to prove his innocence.
The accused has been charged under section 18 of the Foreign Investment Act 1985 (“the Act”) which provides as follows:
18. (1) No person or foreign enterprise shall carry or continue to carry on business in Kiribati without a valid certificate of registration issued under section 16 of this Act.
(2) Any person who or foreign enterprise which contravenes the provisions of subsection (1) of this section commits an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of $10,000.
(3) Where a foreign enterprise is a corporation and such foreign enterprise commits an offence under this section an officer, director or agent of the foreign enterprise who directed, authorised, assented to, acquiesced in or participated in, the commission of the offence is a party to and commits the offence and is liable on conviction to the punishment provided for the offence under this section.
(4) In addition to any fine imposed pursuant to subsection (2) of this section the Court may order the forfeiture of all or any assets of a person or foreign enterprise in Kiribati to the Republic.
Section 16, which provides for the issue of a certificate of registration, is in the following terms:
Teuarai Ereata (PW1) and Ioane Namai (PW2) were the only witnesses called by the prosecution in the present case. I have listened to them carefully and observed them closely throughout when giving evidence and in my view they have been consistent and unshaken in their evidence throughout during careful cross-examination. I find them to be truthful and reliable witnesses and I accept their evidence.
To discharge its onus in the present case the prosecution must prove that the accused are a foreign enterprise, who had carried on business in Kiribati without a valid Certificate of Registration of the Foreign Investment.
The issue however in the present case is whether the accused are “foreign enterprise” for the purposes of the Act.
From the facts it is not in dispute that the accused had first started operating as a restaurant business on December 2001. That was when the Red House Chinese restaurant was opened for the first time to the general public selling fast Chinese food and offering other catering services. Such restaurant still continues such services up to the present time.
Again from the facts it is not in dispute that when the accused first started operating the Red House restaurant in December 2001 and up to now, the accused (Rouatu and Feng) never registered the Red House as a foreign investment. In other words the accused had never obtained and paid for a valid certificate of registration under section 16 of the Act.
Section 2 of the Act which is the Interpretation section provides the following:
“business” includes any profession, trade, occupation, manufacture, industry or undertaking carried on for pecuniary gain;
“carrying on business” means carrying on an economic activity and includes
(a) establishing or using a share transfer or share registration office; or
(b) administering, managing or otherwise dealing with property, both real and personal, as an agent legal personal representative or trustee and whether by an employee, agent or other representative or otherwise; or
(c) maintaining an agent or other representative for the purpose of soliciting or procuring business whether or not such agent or representative is continuously resident in Kiribati; or
(d) maintaining an office, agency or branch in Kiribati;
and excludes –
(e) aid and development projects funded by foreign donors negotiated, arranged or contracted by or through the Government of Kiribati unless the project contractor is, at any time up to the completion of the project, registered by any other circumstances hereunder.
An enterprise shall not be regarded as carrying on business by reason solely that it –
(f) maintains a bank account;
(g) secures or collects any of its debts or enforces its rights in regard to any securities relating to any such debts; or
(h) conducts a transaction which is completed within a period of 31 days not being one of a number of similar transactions in a series; or
(i) collects information or undertakes a feasibility study and “to carry on business” has a similar meaning:
(Amended by No. 5 of 2000 Act Sec. 2)
“enterprise” means any person, natural or corporate or body or association of persons engaged or proposing to become engaged in the carrying on of business;
“foreign enterprise” means –
(a) in the case of an enterprise that is a corporation, an enterprise –
(i) in which any of the voting shares or power of the corporation is held or controlled by a person who is not a local person;
(ii) in which any share or the value of any such share is beneficially owned by a person who is not a local person; or
(iii) that is incorporated or established by or under the law of a place outside Kiribati; and
(b) in the case of any other enterprise –
(i) an enterprise in which any member or partner thereof is not a local person; or
(ii) an enterprise in which any or all of the beneficial ownership is held by a person who is not a local person; or
(iii) an enterprise that is a person other than a local person.
(Amended by No. 9 of 1992 Act Sec. 3)
“foreign investment” means carrying on business in Kiribati by a foreign enterprise and includes the acquisition by a foreign enterprise of any of the share in any company registered in Kiribati;
“local person” means a citizen of Kiribati;
I am satisfied that the accused Rouatu and Feng had established a business in the form of a “Red House” Chinese Restaurant in December 2001. In Exhibit “P3” the “Certificate of Registration (s.13, Registration of Business Names Act 1988)” it is stated
“I hereby certify that a statement furnished by Rouatu Tekiree of Betio, South Tarawa and Feng Jian Chow of Bikenibeu, South Tarawa, has been delivered pursuant to section 5 of the above mentioned Act, and the business name RED HOUSE has now been registered.
Dated this 13th day of February 2004
Signed David Lambourne
Registrar of Business Names”
Rouatu and Feng in the present case had already started operating the Red House since 16 December 2001 (Exhibit “P3” Form 2 Statutory Declaration horizontal column (No. 4).
In the same Exhibit “P3”, Statutory Declaration immediately below horizontal column 5 on extreme left hand side of vertical column the accused Rouatu Tekiree solemnly and sincerely declare that he himself (Rouatu) and Feng Jian Chow are “partners in the firm” i.e. Red House restaurant.
Further Rouatu himself said that he is the owner of Red House. He had provided the initial working capital of Red House of about between $30,000 to $40,000 to set up the Red House. He has bought the “business Licence Certificate” for the Red House from Teinainano Urban Council (see Exhibit “D2”) and such licence was issued to him personally in his own name.
Rouatu has also entered into a “Contract of Service” between Mr Feng and himself on 6 September 2002 (see Exhibit “D3”). Under that Contract of Service Rouatu is described as ‘the Employer’ and Feng is appointed as a “manager” of the “Red House” and “employee” of the “Employer” Rouatu with wages of $200 per month.
It is not in dispute that Feng Jian Chow is a citizen of the (People’s) Republic of China and thus Chinese. Feng Jian Chow himself had admitted it in the “Foreign Investment Appraisal Application form (Personal Particulars of Applicant) (see Exhibit “P2”). Also “The Nauru Police Force’s Police Clearance Certificate” dated 3rd September 2001 also confirms that Mr Feng Jian Chow is a citizen of the (People’s) Republic of China and holder of Chinese Passport No. 146965892. That certificate also certifies that Mr Feng Jian Chow has been employed with the Nauru Phosphate Corporation from 04/06/99 till 3rd September 2001.
Feng Jian Chow beyond reasonable doubt came to Tarawa specifically to manage the Red House and as he has stated in his evidence apart from carrying out the renovating work to the building of Red House before it commenced operation, when it eventually started operating in December 2001 and up to now he is the chief cook in the Red House for Chinese cuisine. Beyond reasonable doubt the accused Rouatu and Feng are enterprise within the meaning of the definition of “enterprise” which provides that it is . . . ”an association of persons engaged or purporting to become engaged in the carrying on of business”.
The next question to be resolved is whether the accused Rouatu and Feng are “foreign enterprise” for the purposes of the Act.
The definition of “foreign enterprise” draws a distinction between an enterprise which is a corporation (i.e. incorporated under statute) and an enterprise which is not a corporation.
The definition of “foreign enterprise” is in the following terms:
(a) in the case of an enterprise that is a corporation (this is irrelevant to present case as it deals with an enterprise which is a corporation).
(b) in the case of any other enterprise –
(i) an enterprise in which any member or partner thereof is not a local person (this is relevant to the present case) (underline mine)
(ii) irrelevant;
(iii) irrelevant.
Clearly from the facts the definition of “foreign enterprise” which appears to be applicable to the accused’s business is the definition of foreign enterprise as set out in section 2(b)(i) of the Act above.
Feng as already shown is a Chinese citizen. He is not a “local person” or a citizen of Kiribati. However and as again already shown Rouatu and Feng had for more than two years worked and pooled their resources together in order to set up the Red House Chinese Restaurant which commenced carrying on business in December 2001 and still do so up to now.
Rouatu, as already stated, had provided the necessary starting up capital for the Red House and also secured from TUC the necessary operating business licence for the Red House.
Feng on the other hand had also provided indirectly the starting up capital for the Red House, not by way of actually providing or contributing actual capital for the Red House, but in kind. As already stated Feng has been and still is the manager of the Red House since commencement and up to now and throughout that period of time of operation Feng had provided and still provides the necessary catering skill and expertise for the provision in the Red House of Chinese cuisine which hardly exists in South Tarawa or throughout Kiribati for that matter before the Red House restaurant started operating. It is this special Chinese catering skill and expertise of Feng to cook and produce Chinese cuisine that brought him to the Red House in Tarawa in the first place and had to leave Nauru where he had been working before.
Mr Berina – counsel for the defence argued that Feng could not be regarded as “foreign enterprise” within the meaning of the definition of “foreign enterprise” under the Act as he is an employee of Rouatu and has not in fact invested any capital in their business or the enterprise (i.e. Red House) at all. While it is true to say that Feng, apart from the fact that he is the chief cook in the Red House and thus he applies his special skill and knowledge daily as to the preparation and serving of Chinese cuisine in the Red House, he had not contributed to any starting up capital of the Red House, in my opinion such contention cannot be sustained vis a vis the definition of “foreign enterprise” under section 2(b)(i) of the Act. That definition seems to me to be quite capable of wide application to a wider variety of foreign investments which a foreign investor may wish to invest in any business in Kiribati: whether it be the actual investment of starting up capital in the business as the accused had done in the present case or invest in the business in kind as the accused Feng had done in the present case. An example of investing in the business in kind is where a foreign investor invests in the business by way of technical special skill or know-how transfer about certain things for example the manufacture or processing of certain products or goods which may be needed in a country like Kiribati. And the determining factor in order for an enterprise other than a corporation to qualify as “foreign enterprise in Kiribati is that a person who is not a “local person” (a non citizen of Kiribati) is a “member” or “partner” in that enterprise (i.e. an association of persons engaged or proposing to be engaged in the carrying on of business).
As how such non-citizen of Kiribati (foreigner) becomes a “member” or “partner” in the business (enterprise) whether such member or partner actually investing capital in the business or simply investing in the business in kind any either form of such investment in the business in terms of the definition of “foreign enterprise” in section 2(b)(i) in my view would seem to qualify such foreign investor as “foreign enterprise” for the purposes of the Act.
Beyond reasonable doubt the enterprise which the accused had established in the form of “Red House” Chinese restaurant is “foreign enterprise” falling squarely within the definition of “foreign enterprise” under the Foreign Investment Act 1985.
Further Exhibit “P3” at attachment “Form 2 – Application for Registration by a Firm Declaration” at the bottom of the page in the vertical column on extreme left hand side of the page the accused Rouatu do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that: “Rouatu Tekiree and Feng Jian Chow are partners in the firm” which in the present case it is a reference to the “Red House” (emphasis mine).
Therefore beyond reasonable doubt the accused are “foreign enterprise” for the purposes of the Foreign Investment Act 1985.
Taking into account the whole of the evidence in the present case I am satisfied that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused between December 2001 and April 2004 had carried on business in Kiribati without a valid certificate of registration.
I therefore find the accused guilty of carrying on unregistered investment under section 18 of the Foreign Investment Act 1985 and I convict them accordingly.
Dated the day of August 2004
THE HON MR JUSTICE MICHAEL N TAKABWEBWE
Judge
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/ki/cases/KIHC/2004/175.html