CEVA LOGISTICS T LTD VS JUNACO T LTD COMM CASE NO

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION)

AT PAR ES SALAAM COMMERCIAL CASE NO. 2991 OF 2024 CEVA LOGISTICS TANZANIA LIMITED...................... PLAINTIFF

VERSUS JUNACO (T) LIMITED.................................................... DEFENDANT

JUDGMENT ON ADMISSION Date oflast order: 02/07/2024 Date ofJudgment:26/07/2024 AGATHO, J.: Briefly, the Plaintiff, one CEVA LOGISTICS TANZANIA LIMITED on 20th January 2024 filed a suit against the Defendant before this Court in which she is seeking judgment and decree as follows: (a) payment of the USD 247, 761. 52 or its equivalent in Tanzania Shillings at the prevailing conversion rate at the time of payment, being the remaining outstanding amount for the freight service provided, (b) payment of USD 37,500 or its equivalent in Tanzania Shillings at the prevailing conversion rate at the time of payment, being mesne profit from February 2022 to date, (c) payment of interest on the outstanding amount at 18% per annum as provided for in the CEVA Terms and Conditions, (e) Payment of general damages for breach of contract to be assessed by the Court, (f) costs of the suit. i It is on record that the Plaintiff effected the service of the plaint upon the Defendant, the latter filed her Written Statement of Defence (WSD). However, on 4th June 2024 she prayed for amendment of her WSD. The said prayer was dully granted by the Court. On paragraph 6 of the amended WSD in response to paragraph 8 of the plaint the Defendant stated that: "The content of paragraph 8 are strongly disputed, the Defendant restate the outstanding balance as stated in paragraph 3 of the WSD, further the Defendant

states that, she is willing to settle the said outstanding amount of USD 26, 204.80, however the Defendant has encountered financial difficulties for the year ending in 2022 to 2023 which has affected her ability to settle the remaining balance..." When the matter came for mention on 4th June 2024 the Defendant counsel Mr Adronicus Byamungu stated categorically that the Defendant admits that the balance due is roughly USD 26,000. However, that was the date when the order for amendment of WSD was given. On the 2nd July 2024 when the matter came for 1st pre-trial conference the Plaintiff counsel Nenduvoto Mollel having noted that in paragraph 6 of the amended WSD the Defendant has partially admitted the Plaintiff's claim to the extent that she is willing to settle USD 26,204.80 the counsel moved the Court under provisions of Order XII Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code [Cap 33 R.E. 2019] for judgment on admission. In that paragraph the defendant has acknowledged that she is willing to settle the outstanding amount of USD 26,204.80. The Plaintiff's rightly 2 prayed that the court enter judgment on admission in their favour for the amount admitted. She further requested the matter to proceed with the remaining amount in dispute. It was Ms Mollers submission that following that admission the Plaintiff is praying for a judgment on admission as the law gives room for a party to apply

for judgment on admission when the other party has admitted the whole or part of the claim. It is on record that the defence counsel Ms. Shiza Ahmed had no objection with the Plaintiff's prayer. Instead she went on praying that case proceed to 1st pre-trial conference and mediation as scheduled. The law under Order XII Rule 4 of Civil Procedure Code [Cap 33 R.E. 2019] provides that any party to the suit at any stage where admission has been made either on pleadings or otherwise s/he may make an application to the court for judgment on admission or order on such admission. That is what the Plaintiff did. Looking at paragraph 6 of the amended WSD, the admission of the Defendant was clear, unequivocal, and unambiguous. The Court has held in Duncan Nruce MacDonald v Aminin Nderingo Kimaro, Commercial Case No. 4 of 2020 High Court Commercial Division at Dar es salaam at page 10 that admissions can even be constructive admission and need not be specific or express, as it which can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case. This court finds that in the matter at hand the admissions was specific and clear. In the end the court finds that the Defendant's admission in paragraph 6 of her amended WSD that she is willing to settle outstanding balance of USD 26, 204.80 is unequivocal admission. Therefore, judgment is entered in favour of the Plaintiff with respect to 3 the

admitted outstanding amount. The Defendant is ordered to pay the amount so admitted to the Plaintiff. The suit will proceed with remaining parts of the claims in the plaint that have been denied by the Defendant. And costs will follow the event in the trial. It is so ordered. DATED at DAR ES SALAAM this 26th Day of July 2024. Date: 26/07/2024 Coram: Hon. U. J. Agatho J. For Plaintiff: Oswald Rusibamayila, Advocate For Defendant: Oswald Rusibamayila, Advocate h/b Adronicus Byamungu, Advocate for. C/Clerk: E. Mkwizu Court: Judgment on admission delivered today this 26th July 2024 in the presence of Oswald Rusibamayila counsel for the Plaintiff, also holding brief of Adronicus Byamungu counsel for the Defendant.