19911223 TZCA Dar es Salaam

r-- AT ARUSHJ\. CIVIL A?P2AL NO. 1 OF 1990 THE, COOP BR MOTOR. CORPOR/~TION LTD. ... "\ND MOSHI/ARU.Si--L\ OCCUP.:\TION.\L HEALTH SERVICES • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • RBS?ONDEi\JT (Appo.;1.l fro;:1 the Judgment of the High Court )f Tnnzania 3.t Arusha) 1 (Mwaki ____ , ,b2te . J_J.) _ dated th2 6th day of Dece~ber, 1988 in _9iv.iJ.:._Case No. 14 of 1981 JU.:JGM.2?-.JT OF TH . ~ COURT ......... The app~llant, th2 Cooper Motor Corporation Ltd~, is a li;11i ted lio.bili ty Compo.ny', · specialist in volkswagon vehicl2s, a.r;iong oth-.::rs, with 3 br,.:nch in Moshi. The· ...... respondent, i'foshi/,\rushn Occup.3.tiona 7- H2al th Services, is also a liraited liability co~pany based in Moshi tooo ~ A. volksw2gon ce:;.1bi bus of the respondi2nt with registr::ition nu ..1ber TZ 44059 was involved in an accident on 27/5/1980 3nd consequently w~s driven nnd delivered to the 3.ppe11::mt on 24th July, 1980, fer repair estimates aft~r it h~d st2y0d for almost two ~onths at another garege. On or about 17th Noveob2r, 1980 the aJpellsnt inforLled the respondent thnt the engine of the s~id vehicle had been stolen whilG in their ( 2p~::>ello.nt' s) nossession and custody • .• . , I 2 2 .. f il0;d 2- suit on 25th .i\pril, 1981 and on 10th IvJ:arC'h, 1982 tow-:?d th2 bus G.wo.y from th2 pr2;,1is2s of the ,:.~Jp2ll:mt. The High Court 0f Ta.nzcmia Gt .\rush.ci. (J:1r.·. :~KI:3.s·rE, J.) found th:i.t th 2 ap·,1ell2nt had bre:.ch2d th0ir contract of bJ.il1nent with 1 the respondent. He held them liable fur Shs. 45,000/= being th2 price of a new cngin2; Shs. 54,000/= far loss of use bf the vehicle fr □~ the ti~2.the engine got lost to t12 ti,Je of filing the suit and Shs. 600, 000/ = general dam~ges fr □ Ll 1980 to th2 date cf judg~2nt in 1988. This appeal is from that judgraent. "\t the st:~rt of h2J.ring thi.s·ao·o2al Mr. NG"J...,0, le2.rned advoc.~:t,::i f,:>r the a9;;_Jt::llant, left no st0n2 unturned and no cutlet uncc'.)ked 2nd.::::.vuuring to p2rsuo.de us to find tha.t tl1f".:2e WJ.S no c 1Jntr'.}_ct of b--~il.:12;:1t :::i.t 311. How2ver, due to the probings from the bench, h~ conceded, rightly too, in . our opinion, th2t ther2 w~s such n ccntr2ct. He also conceded to the 2w:1rd of Shs. 45,000/=. Thus he abandoned thr22 out of his s2v2n gr,:,unds :Jf :r;;>p22l. The r2,;J,'J.ining four grounds deal with d~~~g2s 2nd VGry conveni2ntly settle d·.:.,wn tc two issues. First, Wi?..S the payr112nt of Shs,,54,000/= fer loss of usG justified? Second, w2re·general damages specific:1lly pleaded :::nd 9 in·any c3.se 1 was the quantum Rcg::irding th0 loss of use Mr. Ng3.lo subi;:ii tted th:J.t the vehicl~ 1,,,1:J.s d3.E1J.g·2d and w2.s th2ref '.)r8 not usc1bl2. The respondents h'.J.d to incur thos2 ~xpcns2s in ~ny c2se even if th2r2 was no breach of th:.:: contract of b::til1r.-2nt. Mr. S3AY0, lenrn2d advocat2 for th2 respondents, rep~at2d 3 -.- t'.) th3.t the res)ondent ha.d to hire: trJ.nsport .::md so i·;-iust be recouped th2ir expenses from th~ tLne thE: c·ngine disc1pp23.red to th2 ti~e of filing the suit. 1\dr.1i ttedly ·3.s this vehicl2 was off the:: ro~1d al tern3ti ve trcms-rxlrt hsd to b2 hired 8.S evidenced by receipts (Exh. P5). But this w~s net b2caus2 of th~ th2ft of the engine on I 17/11/80. On the contrnry this was a result of the accident that dm,,agc-'d the bus on 27 /5/80. 1· 1e ask why da::1ag2s :J.r~ sought just for the pericd from th2 d~te: of th2 theft of th~ engine 3nd n~t before that. H3_,SBU:~Y 1 S L/.S O.? ~'X:GJ. ./.ilJD 3rd .ti:d. Vo.II P.233 nThe fund3.r:1cnt.:J.l principle by which the Courts nre guid2d in a.warding da;u:tg:.:s is I r2sti tutio in integrum 1 • By this is ,,10 :,nt that the law will ~nde3vour, so far ~s money can do it, to pl3c2 thG injur~d person in the s.:.·,:1c si tu.-.;.tirJn :'.lS if th2 con tr .::ct h:J.d bc:c'.n perf,Jrmed ••• ;i In the instQnce CQSe ~fa contract of bnil □ 2nt, the bailee i.e. the appellant h2d th~ duty under Sac. 103 of the Law of Contract Ordinance (Cap. 433) to: ;, ••• t,·:,k2 o.s rauch c::::.re of the g:1ods bail~d ta hi~ as a man of ardin.:J.ry prudence would, und8r sinilar circumsto.nc2s, t-:ke of his own goods of th12 SJ.me bulk, quality o.nd valu2 ss th2 g.::;.ods bailed: 11 (The proviso is not relevant). Thus i.f the a 1Jp-::ll::nt hc..d obs2rv2d tho.t du~y the contract wculd have been p2rfJrJ2d, th3t is tc say, the accident - da1Jo.ged G.nd unro.?..dW'jrthy v2hicl2 would h -.:ve been intact with its engine. HowevGr, it w,)uld stiil b8 unusable. As there was a breach of contrGct nnd th2 2ngine gJt lost then ... I 4 4 11 r,2sti tutio in int.2grur:1 11 d2rnands th3t the v-:1lu2 of the engine in terms of ~oney bu p2id. As th2 respondent could not have used the-vehicle even with its e;ngine intact bC?causo2.of the accident sust~ined e3rlier on, he sh6ul~not be allowed nnything·fJr loss of us2. So Shs, 54,000/= is disallowed, A~ for the general damnges Mr. Ng3lo made three subr:lissions. First, he s.J.id that these arc requir2d to bE? specifically pl22d2d in the plaint 3nd not r.1erely being inentioned in the? pr::i.yer. 112 ci t..:d BULL-2::N & LE.A.KE and J ~COB'S PRiC~DZi\J rs OP PLE ·0HIGS 12th id. $t p, 379 etnd Perestrello C~qt.Q(~tnhie__Lir,1it::id2- v. Unit2~~".int Co. Ltd. [19597 1 1 1 : .L.R. 570. S2cond, h2 submitted th~t Gyen if th~re is s finding should be froD th0 ti8c ~f th~ th2ft Jf th2, 2nginc to the . tiir1e the: vehicle VfClS t2teen 2w2.y by the r2sp,)nd(;nts .'.lnd not to th0 tLh:? .)f thG judg,;;2nt of the High Court. This was conc2d0d by ~r. Shayo • . L~stly, he argued thc..t th~re w~s no evidence on which ::m ::.ssess:x:nt cf g(::ncr.::-.1 d::im..J.g..:.:s t'J th2 tune of Shs. 600,000/= could h~ve b22n ~~d2. He pointed out th2t the 2w2rd is out sf proportion to Shs. 45,000/=, the v3lue of the stolen 2ngine. Mr. Shayo, on the other h~nd, drew the 3ttention of th2 Court to the f3ct th~t th2 p2ssage cited by Mr. Ngalo in p:J.ss:J.ge which st""'..t2 th'J.t they :\re not required to b2 da~2ges have been pl2~ded in p~r~gr3ph 9 of the ul~int and then in th2 pr~yGr in p~rigraph 11~ Ast~ the third point $ •• /5 5 Mr. Sheyo cgrecd th1t th~re w~s no evidence t~ support the CGi,T,,1ents of th2 L::o.rn;.:.;d jud.go in T.v?.rding th:.2 gen2r2l d.J.;'.iJ.g2s. i an o.ppi.:?ll2.t1.: C,)Urt sh:)uld only disturb an 3W.J.rd if it hn~ been gr.3.nt2d on .'.l wrcng principle (.J:ivi0s v. Povv2ll [194?} 1 All :i:.il.. 657 D.t 664/5). Mor2·::v2r,. 1.'lr. Sh:>.y:J sub\]ittC:?d 9 the low'--'r Court wc..s enti tl.:,d to t?.ke d2valu,::i.ti·Jn into :J.ccount (Ns.tion1.l .3'lnk g_f C:Y.11,J,.:crc-2 v, PJ.rm::::r Sh_oe -~..2.!!ll?.?E.Y - Civil App2J.l_ No. 11 /88 of C;\T -- unr<?port2d). Th2 first issu-2 ·we h'1Ve t:-; c(msid2r is wh2thsr or not g2nt?r',.l d ~~;1:1g2s require to be specificCtlly pl2-:1d2d. I ··.'c Ggr-=.f with Mr. Sho.y J th'J.t the piJ.ss::1g2 he h.J.d cited in BUi.,Li:N :J.nd LK~~·:.2 p. 379 is th,.? rel2v2.nt one .J.nd ree;.ds 3.S. follow'S: 11 In cl -:i.La f :-1r g,.,m...:r'11 d2.iT2g2s 1 p.:."lrticulars will n0t b.2 n02ded l)f the qu:mtum of d:J.i:Dges cl :.."li::,2d ( se2 London 6nd Northern Bctnk Ltd_._"' v. G2Jr_g_e -.:N;;m2s .Ltd. (1§00)16 T.L.H. ~33 1 C.A~.) ~ On the other h::md 1 the r:10r2 st-::tern2nt ·0r pre.y~r of .J. cl.J.ic1 f ·:)r 'd~t.1.---.gi:.:'s I will nr;t SU)port et clair,l f.·;r J.ny p:1rticul.'r in,jury or loss other th3.n gcn~r::i.l d:i.L-'.lgc.:s ( s2e P2r(=:strollo C? C·.Jm,J:~,nhis Lilili t::.d.J. v. United Po.int Co. t ta::-z1··969/1 1 ·• 1 JL 570 L11___ · It is J.bund.::mtly cL:: T fr;:;m thiJ ':'.bov:? quct2d p:i.sso.g2 thG.t 0 nl y g. -::··n·s:..: r~1 ~'. d ..,_,i b c! s C"n --·13.rr. ... b,-:.. __ n _-d ':CS:.,.\.• f··.-r by ,,,_ 1,1.·,re _ st·1t..:.:iik:Dt or pro.ycr (·Jf 2 cL:iim:: ~ .,.nd this is wh:::.1.t h:).s be2n done in this C.'.lSe. The:: c:,s2 of P~r-.:str2ll:) v, . Uni t12d P.:J.int C-:,. Ltq. which hJ.s be~n r~fcrr~d t0 in th~ ~brve p2ssJ.g2 ~nd ~lso citGd to us by Mr. NgJ.lc pr•-JVid-...:s ;:lt p·::i.g2 579 thus~ 11 Th2r2 is pL:nty ::,f :-i.uth,Jrity f,Jr the propositir~ th~t .'.l·plJ.intiff ne~d nc,t pL: ·.d g'-'ncr::.l d::;112-ge ••• " 1-.. 6 ✓ The 12 ~.rn--.:d judg0 1 tha1 w'-'nt on to qu,)te LORJ DUNJ:)IN in Admir:::il ty CoL:iflissicn-.:..'rs v. _ S.S. Susflu2h2.nna L192§/ .,\. C. 655 \ :1t p.661 why S'..'lid: • 1 If d:J.,;,.J.gl:' b1.: ger1t.:r2l, then it r,1us t be Gverrl.'.?d th-:'.t. such d.:1i1ng2 h:ts b0en suffered, but the quJ.ntificotion of such d:1iiL .;s0 is CJ. jury qu2stion. :r 1 Th2 L::c1rn...:-d judge J.ft.:,r quoting the: ab-::w2 passo.g"-" g2ve an amplific~ticn: Hi,,hnt etiJs')Unts to a sufficicmt J.v2rm2nt for this purposG will d0pend on the f3.cts ·'.)f th,.:? p::trticul 1r co.se ••• :i ··\2 think on th"-7 f:"tcts ,_)f th-..: ::tpp2 _:.l b~for~ us, which we ho.ve concisely n~rr:J.t~d 2t th2 b2ginning, the word 'inconvenidnce' in par3grQph 9 of thG plaint: , 1 • ,\.s 2 r2sul t 'Jf th2 loss of the 2ngine the plJ.inti~f h~s b0cn deprived the us2 !Jf the 1n:·.tDr vehicle o.nd h 'S b;__;en putt~ c0nsid2r~b1~·expense and inc:)nv2ni0nce ••• 0 .:md the pr'.J.y2r (in p:J.r.:1gr:J.ph 11 (b)) for .::.i ; 1 judgraent ag.::i.inst th0 def0nd2-nts f ...;r gc.:n~~r .. 1 dn(,1'.lf;-.::S :::.s the honour;.:1ble Court The s1..:·c,md issu-2 now is should w2 :Jr should· we 'not - disturb the qu:mtuitl. of g2ncr::i.l d.:tr:13.gcs. Mr. Sh2yo rc:f 2rred us tc~ D:tvi2s v. Pow2ll [19427. That• decisi,m of th(:; Court of },.ppc2l wo.s :J.:ppr·::::v0d by the: Privy Council in NJ.n~~ ?ri tish ·- Columbia 2L?ctric R:1ilw.'.'.y Co • .J-,t_@.. [195.J} .r,.C. 601 at :p.613 thus: ;r •• 0 tho :.ssoss:i1ent cf d.:J..n }gi2s 1.: .. hc·th~..:r i . i l. be by a judgu or~ jury 1 th2 appellate Court is not justifi~d in substituting J. figure: of its :JWr1 f ,)r th ;.t .:lW3.rded b..::low siu:~ly b.2c2us2 it w·,uld ho.v~ ..• /7 7 3W'J.rd2d c. diff -..:r~nt figur·t: if it he.d tri2d tho case ··~ b2for2 the :J.)pellate~ Cotirt can prop2rly int2rv0ne, it must b0 satisfi~d ~ith~r ·that the judg2, in assessing th<.: d.'1,i:J.g2s, appli:Jd n wrong principle of law (as t'.lking into :1cccunt s·;·,:ic irr2L::VJ.nt fact-Jr .:_;f 12.:ving out of acc~unt s~J~ r~l~v~nt one); or, short of this, th~t th0 :J.~~unt ~w~rd~d is so inordin3toly law ,r so inordin2tely high th2..~ it must b0 :1 wh,::il~y ?rronc,)US 2 s tima te .-f th...:. d :~1inge ••• '' Th~t p0siticn W3S 1dopt2d by th2 Court of \pp03l for £nst2rn i\fric:1 in }L:mry Hid:ly'.l Il2.ng:J. v. ivlanya:nn Manyok2l' [19617 E .,~. 705 :J.t 713. '..'e "..r2 of th~ opinion th2.t th2 .i.Jrinciples st:.·t2d ar2 correct. Now applying th~ principles ta th~ pres~nt c2se .J.n irrelevant fact:Jr -.rh:::n h1:: c-:msider2d the p2ri:;d C:)V2r2d to be up to th~ ti~~ of judg~~nt inst2~d Jf up to th~ tioe the v2hicle wJ.s t,)W ..:d ::1w.3.y which Hr. Sha yo, ::,s :ilre .:cdy said, evidenc2 which :;g2.in I--'lr. Sh2yo C·Jncl:!d2d. The L:~:.rned -judgG said~ 1\nd in ;;1.ss2ssing g2n2r2l dQ,TI:t~es I 11 t2kG int~ 2cccunt th2 circumst~nces under which the: \::ngine disnpp,1:i.red and the f2ct that th~ m0tor ~ehicle in qu~stion h3s consequently b22n ·1ying idle all these y22rs since 1980 $ t:)d-'J.tc, t.,J the _g£_s;o.t inconve- ni2nc2 of th2 plaintiff company. Cust,·;o...:.rs ought n-Jt to be uncluly scared at th~ prosp0cts of losing$ ~r hQving tb0ir m0t0r VGhicles , co.nnib~lized if left 0t th2 garage f ,)r purp·JS(.:S fer which th-::: gc..r0.g-2s ar2 intand~d. I would award Shs. 600,000/= in g2n~r~l d~~ng2s ••• " It is awJ.rdcd is s ·) :: inordinJ.h~ly high ;i. -------- ----- · :1--i-on th3t the 3.;,10unt ~·\? etgr20 i.vi th Mr. Ng:11O ... /8 ....,. . .. • •, 8 ' .;J '"' !,v.-~· d3~n~2s d~2s not '--1 ~- ·, / \/ b22r ~ny r~l3ticnship tc Shs. 45,000/=, the v2lue of the st ::len \. . .1 " ·engine. ,; Mr. Shayo ~rgu2d th~t devnlu~tion w2s 3 f~ctar to hcv2 be2n consider2d. ~0 h1ve nev0r b~0n able to l::iy our h2nds on tho c2s2 h~ has cit2d. Mr. Ngalo claims that th2t decision was ::ilright o.s it p-2rt:J.in2d to the: repo.ylll,,mt of ,,1onGy. Be that 3S it m~y, th2t o~ght to h3ve b22n an argument to se2k the enh3nceillent of mon~tnry V3luc of the lost engine. How2ver, it W3S not advo.nc~d th2n. The o. □ 0unt awarded even now with th0 davalu::ition is "inordin3tely high 11 • ~e th~r0forG think th' .t .'J.n 1.w:i.rd of Shs. 1-50, 000/ = will r:128t the justice of the 1 Thus w.:: uph·:;ld th0 :J.wc.rd of Shs. 45,000/= being the vnlu0 of th~ lost engine, we strike out the :i.w3rd of Shs~ 54,000/= for lass cf us~ ~nd w2 r2duc0 gener~l daLlag?s to Shs. 150,000/=. As th2 r2spundent has subst3ntialy won the appc1l we 3llow hiu ta h~v2 his full c0sts bJth here and in the Court b~low. Appenl is ::i.llow,2d t:J th2 uxtcnt explain2d 3.bove. D/,TED 3.t ,:,RUSI·L\ this 17th day of August, 1990. R.H. KIS,\NGA JUSTICE OF APPEAL i\. S. L. R :,M:,DHANI JUSTICE OF :tPl:iBAL N. S. MNZ,\V;~S JUSTICE OF tP?E~L I c2rtify th3.t this is a true copy of th2 original. , __ . lvvvtL (M. L. :{. K\T\TNONYELE) ' \ 9 boon occupying tho house sinco 198o, in respect of which occupat~on the app0llant is cnti tled to :rocovor mcsno ~ . . profi tst tho quantum should bo reduced pro tal'lto 9 .· and wo go by tho a.ppollantts proposal in oxhibit D.,2 and fix such profits at shs. 800/= pox month. Tho balance to be 1991. / A., S.~L• RtJ11.ADF.J:..NI · JUSTICE OF li.PP.IDAL No Se :MNZi.\Vl..S JUSTICE OF APPEAL D.P., MAPIG.t,NO Ag. JUSTICE OF APPEAL I oorti.:fy that this is a true copy of tho originru. 0 rff-·_;J - I'. ! M,. s. _:J''fG.!'..LI ~?lTTY IGGI ST.a.,_::g_