19901012 TZHC Dar es Salaam

THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TIANIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF TA!'-TZAf'TIA AT DAR ES S~AAM ClVlL CASE NUMBER •••••••• 212 OF 88 ABDULLA SAID AL:{..Y • ••••• of'LI\IN!ll'FF VERSUS HEMED HASSJ\N MOHSI}T •• o•oryEFE:N'DtJ-..TT JUDGMENT BAHATl J. In this ca_se tne plajntHf fa clajm~ng the sum of. shs. 7251,000/e; damages for breach of contract; interest at the 'rate of 1sro· per·annum as from the date of the agreement r:ill judgment and thereafter 11 till payment; costs of the sujt and any other relief as the nature of the suit may reqUj re •.. The plaintfff,s case is that he 5s sujng the four defendants Who are children of the deceased Salehe Hassan Mohsin and w~•· . respectively. The three chjldren of the deceased are the personel rep~esentative of the deceased and the wSdow is an heiress. The 1 deceased dSodPn 20/7/87 in Dar es salaam and the defendat.·ts who have the right to jnherit the property of the deceased .took over the property of t~e deceased. on 19/8/86 the deceased agreed to sell to the plajntiff a house no 22 Rufiji Street, Kariakoo Dar es Salaam. The plaintiff tendered exhjbit A whjc.h js an agreement of sale in support of his contention. The plaintjff pajd a total of shs.725,000/« and a balance· of shs. 75, 000/ ... was- to be paj.d,. But transfer of the house to him was not done .• Then later on i.t was discovered that the deceased had inherited th0 ~ouse from hjs step mother and as such there was no possjbU~ty of it bejng transferred to the plaintiff', Then after the death of the deceased, the ~efendants could not transfer the house to the plaintjff ejther as the house was not of the deceased • .But the defendants to,)k over the property of the deceased consisting mainly of a house no 30 at Lindi/Nyamwezi Street n•Salaam• The plaint•tf wants the defendants to return the money whjch he paid to their father ,. but the defendants have not paid it to him. The documents te~ered in court by the plaintiff include the sale agreell\'.?nt and rece:ipts amount:iDg to shs. 725 1 000/- which was paid to the father of the defendants. The recejpts are of various amounts of money totalling in all shs .. 725, 000/- and they are in respect of the sale of the house no 22 at Rufiji street. The last receipt,dated 23/6/87 for shs. 5;000/- shows the b.!llance remajnlng as shs. 7,SO•I= \)llly. .. •••• /2 •••••• 2 The case proeeede~ ex parte because no wr~tten statement of defence was fjlen to the amen~ert plajnt as or~ered by the court. I a;n satjsf~ed fr m the evi"ence that the c.la1rn has been prcveC, on the balance f the pr-.. hab1Uties regarn:ing the sum uf shs. 725 1 000/=. There ls D·· evMence t., pr,·ve any general. damc:ges· stiffered by the plajntjff 'f:,r the breach •,)f the c,:,ntract. ! theref0re enter jua9ment f0r the plajnt:lff in the sum .;f shs. 725-,000/i:: together with jnterest and c.:-sts as prayed. since D•J evidence· nas been adducecl w5 th regart1 t :, general damages suffered, I dismiss the cla:f.m of general damages. neiivered tc the plaintiff and his C.Junsel- on 12/10/90. JUDGE 12/10/90