dharam singh hanspaul and sons ltd vs lodrick immanuel uronu another 2022 tzhccomd 158 26 may 2022

dharam singh hanspaul and sons ltd vs lodrick immanuel uronu another 2022 tzhccomd 158 26 may 2022

The plaintiff met all procedural requirements for default judgment and strictly proved specific damages for repair, storage, and medical expenses. Claims for loss of business and towing costs were not strictly proved and were rejected. General damages and interest were awarded as appropriate.

Citation
dharam singh hanspaul and sons ltd vs lodrick immanuel uronu another 2022 tzhccomd 158 26 may 2022
Parties
Plaintiff: Dharam Singh Hanspaul and Sons Limited; 1st Defendant: Lodrick Immanuel Uronu; 2nd Defendant: Fadhili Abraham Msofe
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
26 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Commercial Case / Default Judgment
Outcome
judgment for the plaintiff
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Specific Damages, Negligence, Service of Process
Source Language
English
Commercial Law Tort Law Default Judgment Specific Damages Negligence Service of Process

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dharam Singh Hanspaul and Sons Limited

Plaintiff

Lodrick Immanuel Uronu

1st Defendant

Fadhili Abraham Msofe

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Case / Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific and general damages for the loss and expenses incurred due to the accident caused by the defendants' negligence
  2. 2 Whether the requirements for default judgment under Rule 22(1) of the High Court (Commercial Division) Procedure Rules, 2012 as amended have been met

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff met all procedural requirements for default judgment and strictly proved specific damages for repair, storage, and medical expenses. Claims for loss of business and towing costs were not strictly proved and were rejected. General damages and interest were awarded as appropriate.

Court Disposition

judgment for the plaintiff

Orders

  • Defendants to pay Tshs.43,176,560/= for repair costs of the Mitsubishi Fuso.
  • Defendants to pay Tshs.5,765,000/= for storage costs of the Mitsubishi Fuso.