20170929 TZHC Dar es Salaam 1

20170929 TZHC Dar es Salaam 1

The appellant cannot be held vicariously liable as the 2nd respondent acted outside the scope of employment by carrying passengers in a goods-only vehicle, contrary to explicit instructions and the law. The 1st respondent, knowing the vehicle was not licensed for passengers, voluntarily assumed the risk and cannot claim damages. Special damages were not specifically proved as required by law.

Citation
20170929 TZHC Dar es Salaam 1
Parties
Appellant: Deodatus Deodatus Mremi; 1st Respondent: Evarista Kisaka; 2nd Respondent: Vicent Godfrey
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
29 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Employer Employee Liability, Unauthorized Acts, Damages, Illegality in Tort Claims
Source Language
English
Tort Law Transport Law Vicarious Liability Employer Employee Liability Unauthorized Acts Damages Illegality in Tort Claims

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deodatus Deodatus Mremi

Appellant

Evarista Kisaka

1st Respondent

Vicent Godfrey

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer (appellant) can be held vicariously liable for the unlawful or criminal act of the employee (2nd respondent) done outside the scope of employment
  2. 2 Whether the 1st respondent is entitled to damages for injuries sustained while boarding a vehicle not licensed to carry passengers
  3. 3 Whether special and general damages were properly awarded

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant cannot be held vicariously liable as the 2nd respondent acted outside the scope of employment by carrying passengers in a goods-only vehicle, contrary to explicit instructions and the law. The 1st respondent, knowing the vehicle was not licensed for passengers, voluntarily assumed the risk and cannot claim damages. Special damages were not specifically proved as required by law.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Decision of the Kinondoni District Court quashed and set aside
  • Suit dismissed in its entirety