20030731 TZHC Dr es Salaam
The plaintiff proved the value of her lost goods with sufficient evidence, and the defendant, having failed to defend, is liable for the claimed amount. Claims for assets and business loss were not sufficiently proved and thus not awarded.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 20030731 TZHC Dr es Salaam
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Delphina A. Patrick; Defendant: The Director, Temeke Municipal Council
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 31 July 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment for the plaintiff
- Legal Topics
- Compensation for Destruction of Property, Liability of Municipal Authorities, Procedural Default (ex Parte Judgment)
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Delphina A. Patrick
Plaintiff
The Director, Temeke Municipal Council
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendant is liable for the destruction and loss of the plaintiff's property
- 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for lost goods, assets, and business interest
Ratio Decidendi
The plaintiff proved the value of her lost goods with sufficient evidence, and the defendant, having failed to defend, is liable for the claimed amount. Claims for assets and business loss were not sufficiently proved and thus not awarded.
Court Disposition
Judgment for the plaintiff
Orders
- Defendant to pay TShs 11,203,700 plus interest at court rate from the date of filing to judgment and thereafter until payment in full.
- Defendant to pay costs of the case.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
, IN THE HIGH counT OF T!I.NZfll'iIA CIVIL CA-SE: m.211 OF2002 DELPHitt\ Gl) Pi\Tl1ICI{ ~ o o,, o a o o o ,:, o o o c ~ o o o o,) o ~ o . l='Lf1II'JTIFF ;i TI-ff::: DL'iSCTOJ? ••1T<FSKF.; t,/1TJrICIP~\I, COUl·?CIL O O 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~<JOO (J ·' "~ 0 ~ u V ~ " e ) ,l O ·DBF~NJ)/U"·1~'.' JTTDGMENT DELPHIN!\. A. FAT~ICK (her2in3fter referred ·as the i:J.o.intiff) in3tituted .3 Civil case c152,ist 'CHE DDEC'fO;i', '.l\1•ii~Jill !JUNICE'i\L COUNCIL , e-"""'_..., 4 ..a..u ..,.,,,. • 11• • •• •••• ••• .-. ,. ........ ..- _,...,__.,,..._. • ,, , . • .,..,,. ,,. ~ "• ""•, ... . - . - . - • ~ (hereindter referred to as the Deft) for recuver;,r .)f T.3hso 18 9 713 9 760/~ b0ing value of. her destroyed\ (•r/rmd 1ost prcp2rties U;:Jon di::molition of her premi8e.s, loss of busi.ness interest o.n.d cost,'3o The case proceeded expr'.I'L:? bec~.use tht= .de:fc-ndant failed to file their writt,,m .3to.temc-nt of ddence in time. The pl::-,.intiffts c::tse is to thic, dfr1ct:- The plaintiff used to own a ,-:;}10p ::i.t Temeke Mwid-io which cor:cr::iined :1 number of 8.rticles. .rh(:) pl::i.intiff h::i.d a busin.-=ss .liconc8 is::;ued by the:: clefend,'.mt (:Sxht P1). 1 Tho.t 2ccordin.~ to the· pV1intiff· .3ip:nifie;l ., ' tbt'.t the: site on which her pr<..:mises stood. v:o.s neµd0d. :;he w:::is ,-:-.uur-2d th.'1.t the site was not n.?cded. On 2 1+/7/200,1 :1round. 6. 00 :,. 1D. shrJ r•.cc ei ve:d .., b.::lephone c ::ul informing her th:::i.t her shop ·,-::::.s Je,;.olishr)d ,'n::i :)ropertiE:-s t::-.ken • .she rushed to th<:: 3csne. Indeed 3l1e snw th0 shop w.-.s demolished and prop8rties w0re no wher0 tc- be 3een. .She thus_ reportc,d to Chnngcombe. police. ''lith polic~ 9 th(;'y went to th,\ d.efe,1dent. , .' , C:ne:: v1no· 1 SSUGQ the .demolition order. The dderid:mt was prep,'1.red t0 make e;ood the: loss. He directed t:.1e plaintiff to submit thG list of. :propertise. The pl.::i.intiff die. that (Exht p2 A1mext1ll'e) :.:.-:..d mo.de 2. -follow up but to no :::iv.:::ilo She fi112..lly rl:':ferred tbe m;.,tt0r tl; -the lrnvJer who wrote o. dem,cmd letter (Exht p2) lJJ ~- .::Last but not least e. notiC'e tQ sue '(Exh F~~. W'J.S 1;1ritten -~i:ff· ~~,:{9h~d tc, Vlc clefend-:-:.nt r.ts m::nd:,ted by 3.-97 of the J_,oc2.l .. ' ·~: :~X:m:1ent (Urbo.n h.uthoritie::;), 1982. '('here w:?J3 no r~"jSpond, ·'~_,fL. TC: substiatc; her case ~::he >rocluced :photogr:mhs of her :;nops bcfcre ..,t 1:- . . _..j'ndFi:lf t er the demolition (Exht P3 & plf). The pl,':lintiff is rr,wine~;·for l~lt~ ·~;:~ .· , 2 .. ~ -, -.. • ·, ~ ~~ - -~.r,Jl}:i-1~ '.]1,20.:>;700/== r:is va.1u0 of her lost good;:;. '·· :rt;,\_.-· J , {.;;·~ , •I h:we c8refully gone through the list CtS well :),,; the -'Jicture,s • .-:'f11li~: :.$atisfied thGt the amount is riot on the hi,:::h side. ~ ~f,1. ~ ". ':f ... • /1 .~_(:-, ·.. . \~1,':; •'.- J{s, reg::..rds to nssets ,=>c.nrl buil~ing, the plointiff is cldming "'":- ..:~f:·, ..• \ ;;t%~J?...,~(100,000/-. But she r}icl not c:;·1y wbr:t P,3sets were inside the shO:i,1 ':q~;;oh~~-did not ·.s:r:I hot1 she, '1rrived at •th2t fi:;v.re. It i-3 '8. c.:rr(innl fipfii1c·iple in .::11 civil litigation t1vit hE· '/ho avers l10s to prove. ~h~,;;:lantiff f'l.ilec! in thi': item. Like.-1i.se~ 3he di<l 11ot c!.ischnrge ~-J· ,' \~~:;;~~.· ur.clen 3S -how ~~he vns g2tt:ing. T3hs.10 9 000/:: per d3y. ,. .~ .~: .:' · Iri the final ::m.::uysis, therefort::, I r;ptcr ju:.lgerr:ont in favour of ~~:t~·. -~- . . , ··,£)_he plaintiff to the tun0 nf 'l''ih.3.11, 203, 700/.:: plus interest. at the ·,:;:r ) . . . . ~chi.irt·i s -r?,te from th,s· d-3.te of int-fitutini this ·cose >:"md juug.::merit·: i~ 1 -~- :· from the i::1.:,te r,f jurl.Iernr.mt till fin,.-J. p.:,.yrH::nt the r,:rincip:il ~_:_""l-'·:-;_-.•i;::.:::'..,_.··,.;i_,~-- c:.,_,.,.._ t _ _;_-."''i""1:·, .... . . . ."-:', ·1·~1t,-:.r_' ~ -"" S.._1., ,'.:l.t 'o::n~ . ➔-' le s r.:,re. Th.s cte,:c:n;;rr1 l t . 1.s c:,1 so cc-ncl emnee:i .. ;;,.ftQ,_}iay. cn:sts of this c.:tsc-. ,·...;\_'",·... ~-.'-}: · Order c1ccGrdingly. rind d,:.:f e:ndent .:1b.scnt. ~ ... . ~ ' . .... - ·.·'·'.',_ . '.I'' ....