19891019 TZCA Dar es Salaam

19891019 TZCA Dar es Salaam

The court held that the appellant's termination of the contract was wrongful because it was retrospective, not supported by evidence of proper notice, and did not comply with the contractual procedure requiring notice of default and opportunity to remedy. The respondent was granted extensions of time, and the appellant failed to prove that only two extensions were granted or that the respondent was in default justifying termination. Therefore, the trial judge was justified in awarding damages for wrongful termination.

Citation
19891019 TZCA Dar es Salaam
Parties
Appellant: Dar es Salaam City Council; Respondent: Projam Ltd.
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
19 October 1989
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Termination of Contract, Damages, Extension of Time, Notice of Default
Source Language
English
Contract Law Civil Procedure Breach of Contract Termination of Contract Damages Extension of Time Notice of Default

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dar es Salaam City Council

Appellant

Projam Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the termination of the contract by the appellant was wrongful
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was entitled to damages for breach of contract
  3. 3 Whether proper procedure for termination under the contract was followed

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appellant's termination of the contract was wrongful because it was retrospective, not supported by evidence of proper notice, and did not comply with the contractual procedure requiring notice of default and opportunity to remedy. The respondent was granted extensions of time, and the appellant failed to prove that only two extensions were granted or that the respondent was in default justifying termination. Therefore, the trial judge was justified in awarding damages for wrongful termination.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Award of Shs. 400,000 as damages for breach of contract to the respondent confirmed
  • Award of Shs. 107,072.80 for work done but wrongfully withheld confirmed