birchand oil mill ltd vs mathias katubale 2007 tzhc 82 29 may 2007

birchand oil mill ltd vs mathias katubale 2007 tzhc 82 29 may 2007

The appellant company is liable for the payment of Tshs. 1,317,000/= to the respondents because Simon Wilson acted as its employee and cashier, and all his actions were on behalf of the appellant company. There was a contractual relationship between the respondents and the appellant company through its employee.

Citation
birchand oil mill ltd vs mathias katubale 2007 tzhc 82 29 may 2007
Parties
Appellant: Birchand Oil Mill Ltd; Respondent: Mathias Katubale; Respondent: Paulo Katerezu; Respondent: Makoye Mathias; Respondent: Malila Hitra; Respondent: Fikiri Kisumo
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
29 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Employer Liability, Contractual Obligations, Agency
Source Language
English
Contract Law Employment Law Employer Liability Contractual Obligations Agency

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Birchand Oil Mill Ltd

Appellant

Mathias Katubale

Respondent

Paulo Katerezu

Respondent

Makoye Mathias

Respondent

Malila Hitra

Respondent

Fikiri Kisumo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Second Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant company is liable to pay the respondents for cotton sold when payment was made through its employee Simon Wilson
  2. 2 Whether there was a contractual relationship between the appellant and the respondents

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant company is liable for the payment of Tshs. 1,317,000/= to the respondents because Simon Wilson acted as its employee and cashier, and all his actions were on behalf of the appellant company. There was a contractual relationship between the respondents and the appellant company through its employee.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.