natal fidelis and another vs stunaire mkawa 1995 tzhc 704 1 august 1995

£7 thuj maa courjr op t/jtz^ ia 1:2 DM r.'j SALA/SI* CIVIL ,A ,PP I HO, 21 OP 1994 NATAL PIDHLIS . . », ......... .APPELMlIT ca?jtas ?a .:za:tia . » „ ,................ ... f appellast t i p 7:3 STUttAKD UCJML. . , .............. .IGSPOlTDa-iT ■ T I ) ( ? J K ? _ The appellEiits in this oa;3G are Cj^JUTAS TAS'TZ&TiA and HATAL PIUELISI . who i s ail employee of th; 1st appellant* Both appellants ai’e aggrieved hy the decision of the tr ia l nagis'srate wherein on 3*2*94 aw oxpa-fte judgment was entered against them in favou;* of t.o respondent one OTUlLiBT MKWASTA ' " who had his vehicle kn^ak^d down ty t' 5 „nd appellant whilst driving the vehicle belonging to tie le t eppol U :r , -he t r ia l magistrate awarded’ the respondents — 3hs 550,COC as coste of ran. ir to his vehicle — Condensation for loss c f - t s c to the time of shs* 8*64OfOOO# The facts of th is case hrie l y stated are that the p la in tiff now respondent file d a suit -jajn st the lofend.vrts now appellants claiming fo r shs 550,000 as cost,:, of repair to hir? tlrmaged vehicle and shs«8,640j000 heing loss of vise when the respondents vehicle staged id le after the accident, I t is not in dispute that the respondoi.ts vehicle was knocked down hy the 5nd appellant on 1* 1*$3* L ia b ility ym,a r-dnitt«<£ 'but ijiftcw the appellants did not respond to the respondent1s clai . the la tte r decided to take tij® "vi\ * matter to oourt, The case was assigned : >r mention on 16*12,93 and when the summons for disposal of suit was ser ed on the appellants, the la tte r refused to he served. The tr ia l magistvc -c then allotred the respondent to f i l e an a ffid a vit for eayerte proof ant subsequently jud/^jent was entered infavour of the respondent as prayed* It . rho pertinent to mention hep© that as the appellants had refused to "be m. ..~’od on 14. 12. 93j the s u b s e q u e n t events took plaoe without their being aware. lie* ICapinga leaned counsel for the appellants has f ile d four grounds Of appeal against the judgment of th j t r i a l io giatrate. There are a* that the learned tr ia l magistrate erred for fa ilin g to write a judgment* Id. in the alternative to (a) above that the learned magistratr aired in law and in faot in swa^dirfg the Vespondent the sum of she* 55^>000 as costs of sgy&ir *> o. that the awaa£ of. e a c y a w f s u n of shs* Bf 640,000 to the respondfljji Sox lo ss of usd of the motor vehicle was4 lasr^aaonahle aod v&s not supported by evidence* &» th a t th e damage caused to th e respondents v e h ic le i*e« ro a r l o f t gat© denied, l e f t gate window g la s s broken and r e a r bumper bent co vld not p reven t th e respondents v e h ic le from op eration s no:; oould i t , in th e o rd in a ry oourse o f liusineno trice ten ;r:„r.tli3 to r e p a ir . - th a t th e learn ed '.a g is tra to f a i l e d to tak e in to account th e p r in c ip le o f .it ig a t io n o f damages* In h is subm ission Mr« ^apinga trrar.., on to e leb o ra to on th e grounds# Mr#Kapinga loaxn ed counsel a tta ck e d th e" j-juLgnent" o f th e t r i a l m a g istrate in th a t i t was not aproper judc-ont as re q u ire d by Order 20 r u le s 3 and 4 o f th e GPC 1966, The judgment o f the t r i a l m a g istrate read* M0rdor» Upon f i l i n g tho icqparto a f f i d a v i t , judgment i s a lte r e d in fa v o u r o f p l a i n t i f f a.s prayed * m Mr Kapinga subm itted "before t h is court th a t what was w r itte n by tho t r i a l m a g istra te was not a proper judgment# -'hat Order 20 R ules 3 & 4 makes i t mandatory th a t a judgment must he \r_’i t t o n and s h a ll co n tain 11a co n cise Statem ent o f th e ca se, tho p o in ts f o r do :o rd in a tio n , th© d e c is io n th ereon and th o reason s f o r such d e c is io n .1' T3 at t l .0 t r i a l m a g istra te f a i l e d to w r ite a judgment and th e re fo r e even v* .. d'. .v^o th a t fo llo w e d oould n ot agree w ith tho judgment as there* was none- -ha*» s i t z z o t.‘.:.oro i s no judgment th en th e re oould ho no do ore-:, Mr#Kapinfa v:.' ;o. tho co u rt to allo w th e appeal on th isgrou n d w ith alone c o s ts , Without p r e ju d ic e to tho fo r c g o i’ig, should th e Court hold th a t th e re i s an appealahlo judgment and d ecree, IIr0Kapinga subm itted th a t th e re was no p ro o f th a t tho respondent expended th e r '- m o f she. 550,000 on rep airs# There was no r e c e ip t tendered "by tho resp o n d s ; A ccording to IIrtKapinga, th e tr ia l m a g istra te should have deducted th e sum o f shs 180,000 as th e re was no p ro o f o f p an el h e a tin g and spraying* to th e tune o f shs 180,000/«.T his sum ought to have heon doducted from tho i c t a l sun claimed# On th e is s u e o f th e lo s s o f u se Mr ICapinga le a rn e d oounsol i s c h a lle n g in g th e fig u r e o f shs 8,640,000 as h ein g u n r e a l i s t i c That tho d ate o f tho r e p a ir to tho v e h ic le i s not krTwn althou^a annorturo ’ C* (an irtvoioo of Suborn Engineering Sorives Idraitod) would Suggest that the repairs were p r o b a b l y done on 15 *7*93 some *194 days after tho aocident# ^ r K apinga was o f the view th a t th e tim e spe. to r e p a ir th e v e h ic le was unreasonably lo n g co n sid e rin g th e n atu re o f th o damage to th e v e h ic le A ccording to lie K apinga a reaaonahlo p e rio d w ild not oxoecd two weeks# Furthermore i t was Kapinga’ s co n ten tion tiur.t tho respondent *s v e h ic le oould not have been o p e ra tio n a l f o r a l l the 28 0 days and made 40 t r i p s d a i ly w ithout i n t eruption# T his i s n ot f e a s i b l e in p r e n tic e and tho t r i a l m a g istrate d id not ta k e th a t in to account# That i t was n e ce ssa ry f o r th e respondent to support h is claim o f lo s s o f uso by p rod u oial some evid en ce p f op era tio n s p r io r to th e a ccid en t so as to in d io a to th e tren d o f h is income from qpo ra tio n s o f tho ve h icle # That-the award of sizes* 8y64CjCCO was -S p ecu la tive and n o t supported lay evidence., tirguod IJr Kapinga fo r o appellants* In addition^ ^r Kapinga subaittod that going "by f . o vohiol-J inspection Uoport comoxfcuro' ’ A* to th o a ffid a v it not Do prevent od from ho i:o p e r a t io n a l or take 10 months to repair* ®io dour go described in tho said inspection report road as follOWGS- af103? accidont "Heat l i f t gate dented L i f t g a te window g la s s "broken Hoat hur-ipor l^ont*' F i n a l l y ?Ir Kapinga submitted that th o Hespondcnt had n llo g a l d uty to m itig a te tho less a fter the ac cidont* I& at i f th e v e h ic le was damaged on 1* 1* 93 ? the respondents should have tajc'ott iJsuaodtiato gtops to r e p a ir his v o h ic lo and repair i t within tiro redes at th o most attd not 10 months* Arood with a ll th is, learned ao-nsol f o r th o a p p e lla n ts asked the court to a. low the Tr cal with costs. Apposing fo r th d respondent* % I'utaitiria from Tanzania L egal C«rx>ore*in......... -'c 'tunastpd* As to tho issue of e fejx u i i.'/;' a .-•""-per jveguent oounsol subm itted t h a t th e lair does not s tip u la t e a p a ^ u ’ i : ^ fornat of how a judgment should lo o k l i k e cazd that- no , eer.rion has v "xr :i reversed sim ply bocause th o judgment is too chert, iho r o s p o n n n v . a cited tho caso o f tra n sp o rt Equipment Limited vs Sovran ¥ » ^ a n . r c C^aa? os Salaam High Court lio g is tc y ) C i v i l Case Bo* 210 of 1989 by Subcr.a -TL.s ho then was)$ th a t th o procedure was not faulted by the Court of Appoal* ' • - On tho issue o f costs o f repair ^o tho vohiclo, counsel subm itted th a t th e re le v a n t document snnorrbura C vc,s produced b efo ro tho court* This was not contradictod by the cppolIt, !;s/dofondants. That tho respondent could not produce rocoipt sinco tho monies woro yot to ho paid* On tho compensation f o r lo s s o f use counsel f o r th o respondent subm itted that there was such ovideao© avr,l i a b l e h o fo ro tho t r i a l m ag istrate* And sin co th e a f f i d a v i t was not open f o r ch allen g e th o t r i a l m a g istra te was not in crrox’ . I t was tho counsols co n ten tio n th a t th o claim was s u f f i c i e n t l y proved* As to tho duty to m itig a te l o s s j c-bunsol f o r respondents w h ile conceding th a t tho rospondont has a d u ty in “ aw to m itig a t o lo s s was o f th e op in io n th a t i t was the a p p e lla n ts who prove; ;od th o respondents from so doing by t h e ir r e fu s a l to sig n th o insurance. fp m s t The a p p e lla n ts cannot he hoard now to ro ly on th a t e q u ita b le d octrin e* A ll in a ll tho respondents a rc suJaa&tting th a t th e appeal ho d ism issed with costs f o r la c k o f substance* I have lade time to study th o rocord o f tills caso* Tho revelations a rc th a t tho a p p e lla n ts th en defendants \ fo v o sorvod w ith summons t o appear f o r th o mention (and *}ot hoaxing) gn 16/ 12/ 93 * 'Rio a p p e lla n ts refused to acknowledge service of summons and tho Court was e n t i t le d to enter judgment f o r th o p la in t iff* •- 4 • However, I th in k t h e t r i a l m a g istra te ov^rt to have Tjeen guided, 'oj theprocedure binder 05 ("0(a) i i (B) which read s*— 6 ( l ) where tlie p l a i n t i f f appears and th e defendant doeb not appear when the s u it i s c a lle d f o r h e a rin g then ( ci/ c#oot o * « « • # * ( i i } - f the p u it i s "before any eou rt o th er then the vs High ^ourt* ( -■ -)• • • ‘ the stu-.ir.ons issu ed was a evowons to appear m d i t i s proved th a t th e summons was d u ly c e r t : :j the court may e n te r judgment f o r th s p la ir. i f f * In th e in s ta n t case i t evid en t the co u rt proceeded under 0 C II 14( 2)('b)* The re le v a n t p ro viso r ; a u r : N (2) In case in ThiaJi a defendant wh© i s re q u ire d under si r u le (2) o f r u le ( l ) to p re se n t h is w r itte n statem ent o f defence f a i l r to do so w ith in th e p e rio d s p e c if ie d in the summons (-ander li v in g nine) th e Court may - / \ \ C. J + 4 o + a * o • e 9 * e ■* * * r • (h) in any other crooy upon a p p lic a tio n in w r it in g by th e p l a i n t i f f - :‘:b: a day f o r e sv p arte p ro o f and may pronounce 3 : ont in fa v o u r o f the p l a i n t i f f upon such p ro o f - f h is claim * M' I say th e t r i a l m a g istrate was in error ’ o act under t h i s p r o v is io n "because in th e f i r s t in sta n ce the summons iss u e .. bo the defendants now a p p e lla n ts d id not re q u ire him to p resen t t h e i r demesnes w ith in a p e rio d sta te d * The summons issu ed to the a p p e lla n ts re q u ire d them to appear in oourt w ithout f a i l and produce documents th ey intended to r e l y on* SoCondly, the p l a i n t i f f d id n ot fo im e rly ap p ly to court fox1 erpra-te p ro o f in te rn s o f 0 8 2 14(2)(h) above cite d * I would th e r e fo re agree w ith Ir Kapinga le a rn ed oounsol f o r th e a p p e lla n ts th a t th e prooedure adopted liy the t r i a l m a g istrate - iirtjegular* Coming now to th e 1 s t ground o f a p p ea l- th e judgment* Hules 4 a-.d 5 o f 0 20 o f th e CPC 1966 p rovid e th a t a Judgment should gontain a cone se statem ent o f the ca se , th e p o in ts fo p de^en ina^ioa* ||h© 4 e c is io ’- +v - and th e reason fo r such d ecisio n * '- There i s however no s p e c i f i c fo rm al how a judgraent- should lo o k li k e * I t i s e f f i c i e n t i f i t i s to rcmfraln th e elem ents statr.c herein above. th e con ten ts i n each ^Udgmenj^ would on ^he whole depend On each in d iv id u a l case* - 5 - 'That happened in $he case/appeal "before me i s th a t s i t os* th e p l a i n t i f f had f i l e d an a f f i d a v i t Tor ex p a r te p ro o f pursuant to an o rd er o f th e t r i a l m a g is tra te . t l c l a t t e r reoordad th e ord er th a t tr0pon f i l i n g th e orp^a^e a f f i d a v i t , judgment i s en tered in favo u r o f th e p l a i n t i f f cs proved Sgd*" In my hnn'ole v i e r th e t r i a l m a g istra te stra y e d in to an oxror when he en tered ;judg»ont :?cr th e p la in t :; f r i- h o u t e v a lu a tin g th e con ten ts o f th e a f f i d a v i t in as f a r as pr~>of 'o r daaagos or claim was concerned* A f f i d a v it s l i h e ai-.y o th er piooc. c " evidence has to Tie analysed. and e v a lu a te d even where i t i s not "being challenged* One does not m erely f i l e an a f f i d a v i t and expect th e t r i a l court to a c t on i t whole s a lo w ith ou t some s o ru tin g . Che s c r u tin g o f th e a f f i d a v i t i s more so in svioh oases as th e ap peal "before :'e where damages and or oompensation one "boing. olaimed* Paragraph 9 o f: xhe p l a i n t i f f s a f f i d a v i t s ta t e s * - p,!That s h il lin g s fiv e hundred, and f i f t y thousands was re q u ire d to r e p a ir th e v e h ic le as shown on an inVoio© "by Sgribern E n gineering S e rv ic e s Lim ited annexed h ereto and masked Cn* The immediate q u estio n th a t oomes to my mind i s ! was t h i s £ igu re(sh s* 550,000) th e a c tu a l sun th a t th e p l a i n t i f f p a id f o r th e r e p a ir 1? was th e re a r e c e ip t issu ed ? The respondent have s ta te d th a t i; ’’th e respondent could net "ro r’uce a r e c e ip t "boca^se th e monies ,:ore y e t t o "bo pt.-'a," That "being th e case th e a ctu a l r e p a ir 0:.: .x :c e s could n ot "be th e sum o f shs* 550,000/■=„ S im ila r ly f o r th e compensation f i , : : : & o f shs* C ,$40,000 ~ "there was no eviden ce to show how t h i s fig u r e had "iJocn arrived at* I t was the duty o f th e t r i a l m a g istrate to an alyse th e evidonco before Jala and oome to his own condusion. By m erely adopting th e f i l e d affidavit i s not p ro o f in such a case* TJha.t I w ish to emphasize I s th a t whother i t is a long judgmentor a sh ort one, eaoh case have to examined on it s own f aots* And f a c t s o f each w i l l d ic t a t e what typo Of judgment shall eaonoto therofnoro, In B ases f o r oxponte p ro o f "by affidavit the t r i a l magistrate has a duty to examine the f i l e d affidavit and satisfy h im self whether tho a lle g e d claim has "boon provod hy th e affidavit o r otherw ise* . That "boing th e p o s it io n I am In c lin e d to a llo w th e appoal and order th a t th o case "be hoard ‘b efo re another m a g istrate w ith aondalk) +0 admit fu r t h e r evidonco. And to th o e x te n t t h i s appeal i s allow ed v i t h co sts* A* G, FJBSDHI JUDOS 6 D e liv e re d "bof oro , . < ' Kapin&a f o r appellcr '-s Respondent il&ano ‘< Mr. ^apin^a - The aacrurt o f hones tod in Coixrt t>o reofundod in. th e enp o i l ants# Court - ’ 1S? G, BUEEJSH ■J U D G E 1/ 8/ 95.