19911029 TZCA Arusha1

-· ···----· ·-- .. ,/ IN THE, COilll'l' OF APPEAL OF 'l'ANZANIA AT AB. USHA (~r KISANGA, J.A., ON.\R, J.A., And HNZAVAS 1 J.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 23 OF 1991 BETWEEN COOFm MOTORS CORFOil.ATIOl': ·~ (T} LTD. r • . . . APPELLANT J. N D lu'UJSFIA . DITERN.ATIONAL CONFERENCE O• •. RESPONDEHT CENTRE ~ (Appeal from the jud@llent and Decree of the High Court 0f Tanzania at Aruaha) ·· (Chua, J.) datod the 14th day of November, 1987 in Civil Case No,26 ~f.1982 JUIX;r.~HT OF '!'TIE COUR!, MNZAVAfl, J.A.: '""' · In this appeal the present respondent, Arusha Intcr-natior, l Conference Centre, filed a aui t in tho High Court 1 ( Chu..,, J.); agail\St the present appellant, :Cooper Motor Corp~ration (T) Ltd: seeking for an order that the appellant/ defendant retur11s to hi.•: hie (respondent's) motor vehicle in good con,dition and repair. l"he respondent/plaintiff also claimed from the appellant/Defendant i. total ·of ~J;is. 166,ooo/-=, as s1iecial damages and general dama.goe 'er loss of use of hie mofor vehicle to tho tune of Sha~ 90,000/-. The trial Court was also asked to g:rant an;y furth~r costs it may deem fit to grant. After a full trial tho .l.oornoo-judge -came to the concluafon that the respondent had proved his- claim against the appellant and acoordingly ordered the appellant to pay She. 1,018,969/30 as I --· . special damages, Sha. 90, ooo/., as 6(lnoral dam~os and finally I j ';·' ordered tho appellant to fix a new engine and gearbox to respondent's motor vehicle. Tlle appellant was also to pay '!'/o interest on tho amounts awarded from the time of filing the suit to tho time the whole amount was paid in full. Aggrieved by tho decision of t 1.~o High_Court the appellant is appealing to this Court. Tho following undisputed faots formod the basis of respod-Jnt 1 s claim against the appellant: On tho 7th of_ August 1981 the respondent/plaintiff delivo:·od his motor vohiclo registration No, SU 13483, a Volksull{;On ComM, to tho appellant I a .garage in Arusha for· ropairs in aocordanco td tl.. instructions as per exhibit P2 dated 7/8/81 for a oonsidora~ior. of Sha. 14,653/.... Tho appollant appar(;mtly repaired tho motor vcHclo but as tho motor vohiolo was about to be dolivorod to tho rospcn,lent . who was road.y to pay for tho repairs tho appellant wrote a. lettor - exhibit P1 datod 26/12/81 to tho rospondont informing him as foL1ows1 "Wo nro sorry to infonn you that tho ongino Md eoarbox for your oar quoted above which was undergoing repairs in our workshop has boon stolen. This was discovered in tho morning of 28th Soptombor, 1981 and tho matter was reported to the Polico who have boon doaling with it since than. Investigations arc still going on after which we shall cominunicato to you. Monnwhilo wo shall ·approciato if you uou.ld please provide us with tho cngino number fi'om tho log bo-:k for omrard transmission to tho C,I.D. Yours fai thfu.lly, For and on behalf of The Coopor.Motor Corp. (T) Ltd, 11 •••/3 3 .. Mtor this corrcopondonco tbq:.1:-PPOllant.. of!orod, wi t!Jout -projudico, to oettlo rospondont 1 s claim out of Court and offorod to :rnirohaso iho motor vohiclo at its market valuq__ at_ tho -timo it was dolivorod.for repair on 7/8/81 - Exhibit P3 dn.tod 21/1/87. A. romind~ r ~ tho offer was sent to tho rospondont by tho appellant on 14/5/82 as shown in exhibit P4 •. A counter offer was mad.a to tho 11ppollant by tho :rospond.ortt who, by way of mitigation of costs, offorod to buy a now ongino nnd goa.rbox for tho motor vohiolo whoso prico would bo submii.tod to bho appollante for pe.yroont by invoioof a.nd. othor damagos to bo noc,:,ti~tod botwoon tho parties as per Exhibit P5 dated 24/3/83. This ooun-rot' offer was not replied to by tho appellant dospito two other romindors as shown in oxhi bi ts P6 and P7 datod 6/ 6/83 and 3/5/83 rospoati vol.Ye It was after thia that tho rospondoni wont to • Court (as mentionedI abovo) and subsoquontly tho appellant, boing a.ggriovod by tho judgomont_ot tho trial Court, docidod to oomo-to this Court. · Before us tho appellant was roprcsontod by Mr. Kapoor o.nd Mr. Doeouzo. loo.rnod Counools~ Mr• Ko.poor oonoodod tho.t thoro ws · a contract botuoon tho appellant and tho respondent whoro'by tho former was to repair e. motor vchiolo of tho lator for a n ~ sum of money. ~qrui.lly Mr. Kapoor _admitted in his subnission that iho motor vohiclo wao dolivorod to tho g.xrD.{!P· of tho appellant o.nd. th9roby maldng tho appellant a bo.iloo of tho motor vohiclo. Uhilo tho mo1or vohiclo was in tho poesoesion of tho bailoo, tho appolla.nt, iW ongino and goarbox woro stolon. Uhnt this Court has to dooido is whothor tho appello.nt as a. bailoo of tho· motor vohiolo would bo. roeponsi blc in lmr ·for the loss of tho engine and tho goa.r-boxt •../4 4 Mr, Kapoor .vieorounly argued that their client, tho ai)poll6:)lt9 as a bailee of t!10 chattel exorcised enough and reasonable care in protecting tho proporty. Ho said to quota him - "No one ,1ould bi•.vo taken tho engine and gearbox without boing dotoctod by tho ~ J • It is our contention that tho motor vehicle was kept in a first class garage and not under a tree. Tho appellant's duty of care was no more than what ho did". Secondly Mr. Kapoor submitted that over and abovo tho argu1.1ont that the appellant had discharged his.duty of care as a 'baiioc under section 103 of tho Law of Contraot Act, ho was als_o protoctod i'rom liability by tllo exemption clause ~n tho. agreement bctlroon tho parties. It was tho loarncd Counsel's submission that a contract can incluio any exemption· clause no matter how wide. In support of this argu,~ont WO wore _referred to tho decisions in KENYON IJrD V BAXTill rro,pm & co '••· i ' 1 WLil 519 and SUISSE ATL!...NTIQUE SOCIETZE D1 ARM:lJf.1:J:!1T MlllTilJJll, S.A vs N,v. RCYIT.I:lU)J\MSCl!E ICOL'm CENTRfJ:.Til (1966}. 2 Ail .ER .61. It uas cubmi ttoa. that tho decision in those two oases was that a contract 00.11 oven · oxoludo a fundamental broach in its exemption clause. lu-, Y.apoor, loamed Counsel submittod_tliat their client, tho appellant, was tlot a warehouse; that ho had contracted to repair respondent's motor vohiclo and not to warehouse it. Coming to tho quantum of damages awarded by tho High Court it was submitted that the rosporxlont had cl.i.imcd a. ma.xi.mum of Shs.166.1 000/•. special dalllilg'Os• That being tho claim Mr. Kapoor argued tlmt tho lonrnod judeo orrod .in lFt.W fo g,wnl'd.i~ apooial dwno.goo to tho respondent which ,-rero more than what tho respondent had pleaded.. In support of this argument tho Court was referred to tho decision •••/5 5 of this Court in TTTE COOP"Sa r.!OTOil CORPO;iJ.TION :.TD vs rmsrrr/k1lIDIL'i. OCCU:',\TIOI{,'J, SEI.lVICES - . CIVIL !J'PI:JU, No. 1 OF 1990. Finally Mr. Kapoor submitted that ovon tho Shs. 1661 000/ .. apocinl clomago·; olaimod by the roopol1dont had not boon proved. To fortify hie o.rgument wo woro rof'orred to pa.go 59 of tho High Court jud..'.;Qmoni:' whero the learned judgo notod that tho plaintiff, now tho roapoJ1dont, had not shown how ho arrived at tho figure of Sha. 1661 000/ ... spocial da.rlla@JS• The learned Counsel askod the Court to·allow tho appeal. In the alternative Hr. Kapoor submHtod in roply that in tho·ovont the Court found that "horo was a fund!llllental broach on tho pm•t of tho appellant the Court should look into tho value of a goar--box and el\.,a:i.ne. 'lo counter Mr. Kapoori.a submission that tho appellant ·i,;-0,,J not liablo for t:1e lose of tho cngino and tho go~box Hr. Umbulla, loo.rncd Counsel for tho roapondont/plo.intiff o.rguod that tho ovi:lonco showed that tho appellant instead of repairing tho motor vohiolo under the contract he ·vando.lizod it. 'l'hia, it wad argued, uont counter to tho statutory proV:i.siona of section 103 of tl,o Ln.u of Contract Act. 3ocondly it wo.o JVir. Umbulln 1 a auooission thnt it :'.a now settled law tha~ Exemption Clausea will not apply vhoro tlloro ... is a fundamontal broach. In support of his argument i-ro uoro roforrod " to ANSON'S Li.l'T OF co1rrn;:.c·r - 21st Ed. at ;eagos 126 and 121. It waG arguod tha;t exemption clauses coaao· to have offoct wlrero tho broach wont to tho root of tho contract. It was submitted that in this case the appollo.nt, as a bailoo, was roquirod in law to ta.k.o ca.re of tho rooponclont 1 a motor vohiclo gimorally. In support of hie argument tho decision in PHO'rO rRODUCTIOii IlrD vs SUClillICOil. TilJJJSPOll'r I/l'D (1978) 3 All rn 146 WUP quotod. • •• / 6 \ 6 ,\s for quantum of damages !fir~ Umbulla subr~i ttcd that sJ.)Ocial. damugos were plcn.dcd and that tb.o sum of Shs. 1·66, ooo/ = clo.imcd was up to 31/3/82~ On the question of general do.nngco it uas lir.Uml! tllo.•s submission thnt t]1oir claim of Shs~ 90,000/"' o.o g-tmoral dnmo.:;os · mo found to bo re,wonablo by tho Iligj.1 Court and asked this Col.trt not loffXnod · to interfere. The L Counsel finally a.rguod that th.is Court should order thi:i.t the rospondont bo componsatod for tho looa of tho engine and gearbox. Tho Court uas asked to dismiss tho o.:ppool with Thia io an intorcGting case and it has exercised oiu- r.rl.nds a groat clca.1. Uo have cndcvourod to road t1.ll the a.uthoritios quotted to us by lellrnotl Couneola and we ho.ve made our own rosoarcl1 o.a to who;!; shoul<l bo the law whoro o.n exemption cluuao is worclocl in uit'.o terms which ten.l to make tho contra.ct i tsolf absurd. This situation aroso in England in tho en.so of J • 3l'U1LDTG v IDlillSIL'.U { 1956) 1 ~-T.L.n., 161 whoro it was !1old intor o.lio., "Exemption clauses aro to be road as subject to a provicio that they only avail to exempt a party when ho is carrying out hia contract, not when ho io deviating fron it or is eu;iltY of a breach which goos to tho root of it". If this <locioion is anything to go by tho facts in this oaac, show tho.t (to borrow Mr. Umbullii. 1 a terminology) tho appellant "vandalisccl the respondent's motor vehicle inntoad of rcpn.i.ring it"• This was clearly a. broach that wont to tho root of tho contra.ct, nut,. a~· already ncntioncd o.bovo, Mr. Kapoor o.rguod · thct :parties 'j;o a contra.ct mv.y insert oxomption clauz.os in o. contr:1ct uh.ich protect a pa.rty oven whore thoro iG a. fm:1.~l-~m9nto.l broach. Tho SUISf.EL ooao ( supra) quo·aocl by Ur. Kapoor in support of his contention uo.o also rcforrod to by Hr. Umbulla. in oupport of tho opposite view. -. 7 rlo hnvo cnrotully road tho judgomcnt in thio c::-.r.io aml it is our vi.cw that tho docioion is moro compati blo wj, th tho argumo1,t advanced by Mr •. Umbulla. thnn that put forward by Mr. Ka.poor. For o::mmplo at pago 68 tho judgotnont of Pearson, IJ, in !l G.s:, r FIN/JtCE l/l'D v 1'11..TIOH.\L MORTGAGE ll.\NK OF GREECE lJID M:.TIOlT/..I, Dl~'.IK OF: GRI:ElCE. S,h. is quottod whore ho said inter a.liar "Aa to tho question of funcla.monta.l broach I think thoro is a rule of construction that normally o.n oxooption.or exclusion ola.ueo or similar provision in a. contra.ct should bo oonatruod ao not applying to a situation oroatod by a fundamental broach of contract. ThiG·is not 11n indopondont rulo of lnw imposed by tho Court on tho partios willy--nilly in disregard of their oontro.otual intention. On tho contrary it is a: rule of construction oosod on tho presumed intentions of tho contracting parties. It involvoo tho implication of a torm to gi vo to tho oontraot that buoinooa efficacy which tho parties a.e roa.oonable man must lmvo intondod it to havo. Thio rule of construction io not now in prinoiplo but it has booorno prominent in roccmt yoaro in oonsoquonco of tho torulency to ho.vo stando.rd forms of oontraot containing exception clausos.d:ra.wn in extravagantly wiuo torL1S 1 which would produoo o.bsurd results if applied litorally"•· In tho so..io once at pa.go 76 tho Court said inter alio.: "Exception olauaos diffor greatly in many rospooto. · "' Probably tho most objootiona.blo a.ro found in tho complex standard conditions whioh c.ro- nmr oo common~ In tho ordinary way tho oustot1or hos no tir.io to road thorn, and if ho did road thorn, ho would probably not undorstand thora. If ho ,lid undorotnrul and objoot to e.ny of thot11 ho 11ould probably ho tolcl that ho could tako it or lonw it. If ho thon wont to another ·supplior, tho . rosul t would_ bo tho ea.mo. Froodom to contra.ct IJUDt surely imply aomo choice or room for ·bargaining. ·:,it tho o-thor oxtroi:io io tho 0000 whore ·partioo aro bargo.ining on terms of oquali ty nru'\. a. stril\:,a-ont ox:onption clnuso is accepted for n quid pro quo or othar good rooson; but this rule ~ppo~rs-to tront nll roses alike~$• Thio ia n cot1plox problem which intimately affects r.iillions of pooplo · and it nppoo.rs to mo tlmt i to oolution ohould bo loft to Parliar.iont". 8 Age.in at PO@ 78 tho Court o~ys inter alias "Somotiraos it has boon doclnrod thc'.t where o. fund.ar.iontal broach ho.d occurred on exception clause could not as.a ma.ttor of lnw bo roliod ) on, but tho bettor_ view on tho a.uthoritioo and tho.t a.ccoptod by both aides boforo your lordohips, is that, as a. 1:1a.ttor of construction, norr.inlly an exception or exclusive clause or eir.dlc,.r provision in a. contract should bo conatruod. a.a not -applying to n. ei tunti-on Cl.'OD;ctod by c. funda.r.1ontal broaoh of oontro.ot 0 • That was o. C1!.SO decided in England. Tho decision io of pcrou.."l..Sivo vnluo, • Cor.dng back·houo wo hnvo eoction 103 of tho Lo.w of Contract 11.ot ·,thiob doale with bniluont. It so.yes "In ull en.sos of b.:lilmont tho bailoo is bound to ta.ko a.s auch ooro of tho goods roiled to hi □ M a. person of ordinary prudonoo would under similar cirow10ta.ncoe toko oaro of hie own goodo of t!10 oru;io bulk, qunli ty nrrl value of tho goods ll..1.ilod: Provided nothing in this section sha.11 be construed na o.pplying to or qualifying tho liability c.t cannon lo.w of a oomtton O!l,.t'rior or o.n inkoopor". In tho prosont cnoo it is not disputed tho.t tho appollnnt ,ro.s a. bniloo of tho motor vohiolo sont to him for ropnirs. As n b..ulco of tho cha.ttol tho fan roquirod hir.i to toke as much care of tho oho.ttol cs a person of ordinary prudonoo .would do in rospoot of hie .. Olm goods., Tha.t tho whole engine o.nd its goo.rbox woro disma.ntlod from tho z;iotor vohiclo and stolon fron appollo.nt 1 s €f!JXO{!;O tends to support Nr.Unbulla. 1 e o.rguraont that tho appellant fnilod to oxoroiso duty of roro in roo1•oot of tho motor vehicle entrusted to hie for repair. This failure wont counter to tho clonr sta.tutory proVisione of sootion 103 of tho La,w of Contract Act, Ca.p 433. ,'la to tho a.rgumont that tho nppollnnt -was protected by tho c:x:coption cla.uso which said inter nlin thnt "tho appellant wns expressly relieved of nll liability for loss of or dnu.~ to customers' 9 - good:3 a.nd property however roused" wo nro so.tisfiod in our o,m aj.nde tha.t tho theft of tho ongino and tho goo.rbox was n bronoh on tlw . pa.rt of tho o.ripollnnt which wont to tho root of tho oontrcot1 a.'1 L llS such could not C1.bool vo tho a.p_polla.nt from linbili ty. ';fo uoul<l to ootting a. vory dangerous procodont if wo aro to hold thnt nn cxonption clause ·liko tho ono roliod. upon by tho o.ppolln.nt could protect a {!JJ.r1lfJO mmor in whoso go.re.go vi to.l parts of _a. r.1otor vd1iclo sont thoro for ropnirs aro stolon. On tho totality of tho evidonco wo ngroo with tho loo.rnod trial judge that tho appollo.nt was liable for tho loos of rospondont 1 a ongino a.nd goa.rbox. 'l'llo nppor-.1 io accordingly disaissod with costs in this Court o.nd tho Hid-1 Cou:r·t• On tho quostion of dnma.gos it is amply cloo.r that tho roopondont llicl not provo to tho Cou.rt how ho inourrod tho apocia.1 (U1.T.Jn,_,"OO o:!? Sha. 166,000/-=. Tho respond.ant did not produce even ::m invoico dcli1D.nding po..yncnt lot nlono a rocoi1)t to show tllat ho incurred. oxponscs in hiring nl tornati vo transport after hio moto1· vohiclo hod· boon vnndnliocd. 'l'!rn.t being tho position and to.ld.ng into nocou.nt tho provisions o:f: OR. VII R. 7 of tho Civil Procedure Codo thnt "'• ovary plo.int ohnll specifically eta.to tho roliof whicl1 tho plclntiff claims wo ho..vo no o..ltornntivo but to disallow tho clo.ir.i of spocinl <l.ano.gos. Wo -would o.lso liko to mention to .tho loar-nod trial jULJ€) that it wa.s wrong in lmt for .hi-m-·to awnr<.l special dru-,ll1.goa .ultich wore □ore tho.n ullat tho rospor.dont/plaintiff had clainod. A :pa.rt;r is only mm.rrlccl dnrx1.gos which ho pleaded and provod by uny of ovidoncc. Soc c.1•• CIVIL l.PPEAL no. 32 OF 1988 - ~'1IBn:t. Dl'l'Dm:.Tl'.)N/J.L COlflirnENCE CENT.illil vs EIJH:JlD CLEMENCE. 'l'ho clnin of Shn. 90,000/ = eon~rnl do.r.ngoo for loss of uno is uphold. 10 I Tho notor vo!ticlo, SU 13483, VW 1 cmmI to bo roturnod ta tho l rospond.ont fi ttod with o. now ongino nnd o. now gonrbox Md in G"O~l ooohrutlcnl oondition nnd ropnir- If tho nppollo.nt hns offootod ropo.ira on tho ootor Vll~iiolc as l)Or repair ord.cr - . Exhibit P2, ropo.ir chargos o.a shmm in Exbi bit P2 to bo paid to him by tho roopond.ont. D/:.TSD nt ,llllJSIU this 29th da.y of Ootobor 1 1991 • .n~n. KISlJ:iGJ. JUSTICE OF .APPE/J., J., • M.,'... OM.tJl. JUSTICE OF 1..PPU:J., N.S. MNZJ.VllS JUSTICE OF ..ll'PEAL true copy of tho original. "·