19930000 TZCA Dar es Salaam 1

- J'.N lffU COURT .01" .. P?:J.:..L OF T.·~I-lZl.,NIL !.:1._ D!.i1 03 ~Yi~ ···• -~ - . - ~ (car11;11: MiJ{.".M:]aJ .le • ._ ,KI__S.'."!T1-li._ J ~ ·.•!_l~d _rrJF:~:r,n_~~~-~w CIVIL LPJ!...t:.I, EO. 3 OJ!, 1992 D.T. D013D & COI'-ft'L1Y (Tii.NZiJU:~ LIIIT'l1 .ID) <. . • ~ AP:r?:~1Lid~IT I AND (/,.ppe al from t.1.1-. u,.n.. .:.Ai l')n of the High Court of Tanz£:nio at .Dar ea Sal<2om) 09'andot .J .J deted the 24th dey ·of September, 1990 in Civil J~ppool No. ..- 35 of 1988 .._.._4.................. -... .... ~ .... ...... ?ji'£{4tA, .:~ .i\~:•W•• ~e -app1ll.a,~'i contpD!tf D.To Dobie & Co. (TOnzan;i.a) Ltd. Bue4 thrl ~aPOftdGnt 1~. B. MWat-=bele in the Dar cs Solac:m l>istr~\. ~ t eleimi,r>.g -tM tlmount. <lf Shs.- 1},627/30 be~ c:~ of. i:epaiting mator vehicle regiBtrotion No. Tm 413 • . this motor vei'liel.e_.,, This wee in 1971, the: rcpaus having been ,.a,:ri~d _(l)i. in 1$6~. U. :ta ~ aad rGflacti-0n on ow: j.udtoial .eysten, that. e cosa oari kke 22 years to r~ach the Jligb.eoi court ·tn th<: country. · This is sod when tiie 'ftlue gt. tllQnG}'" is tol::en into account. .In 1971 it ps •~~Ua~ tl:w ap"f1':1.1?nt company ·-to go to: tqaart tf·.C1a1n.i. the. sum. of shs. H-~627/?f"I. +-,.,...day ..... I• / • . .. . . ' .. 2 _sometime The fccts of the case are not complicate~. i: in 1969, the res,011dent who owned D Mercede~ Benz Car registr~tion - No. Tro- 413, took it to the appellantts companyts g0.r~ge for repairs •. The cnr was rece iv<=d and a job card in respec·t of the work to be donG on it wDs opened~ on this job card·all the work that was to be done on the car was· recorded• }l.ccordin&;· to the Dppellant company~-- 011. tru: .rapnil::3 '1ere carried out and new spares fitted. The car was ready .for collection. Bu.t tho respondent failed to pay the oherges raised. The appellant company therefore refused to .rcrlease the oar bef~re payment was effected. The situatien remained thus until· 1971 when the appellant gompaey dcreided to file this. suit in the District Court to recover·the outstanding amount. In the plaipt, storajc cha~ges in respeet c£ this vehiele were olaimed et the r!te of aha. lo/= per day £rom. thG as.ts .D£ tba suit tUl.. J:ckiog dctliver,y of the ".'ehicle • The respondent had a different story~ He -told. tha trial court that he went personally to the appellantts p~emises on seve~al -00ea.aiooa to. ooJ.laet..his ,at;r but tound on GDOh oooasion truit his vehicle had either not been repaired st all or hod not been repaired prQPer~, the~s= he never took deliv.ery of tba oar. Aocord.ing. t• him, the positi.On-.r~mained thua up to· the ti.roe th€ ap~ll.ant'£Ued this suit~ In tha diatri.ft O;>ttrt, the Magistrate held that on the , balance the ap~~_-.ompaey had oa.2'J:'.ie-0 out tb.e re_pail:s on.~ . . the car as_ ~Qil.trapd wt be ·refused to order payment as prayed on the basis that the respondent hcJd derived no ben~fit ••••·· ./3. r 3 - following its nGgligent handlirl6' by the appellant com~;an;y·. The ap:t4=llant compony appealed to thG High court, complaining ' . against the Magistrokts_ order tht1t it should pc.y for the: pri•ce of the vehicle_ and his refusal to· order p8yment of thedHim due after finding that it hod carried out tb.c agreed rep,d.rs. _ The High court (1<Yando, J.) dismissed the: appeal on the question of payment for repairs but-allowed the appeal on the question of payment of the price of the vehiol~ stcting,correctly that it was not counter clo imed in the pleadings. on the repairs of the motor vchiclG, the learned judge hGld tbnt the.re was no evidence to support the finding that aey such repairs had been carried out. In this further appeal to ua, the appellant company raised three substantivo grounds of appeal. First, that 'v the learned judge erred in f~t.. in holding tl;tat th<> appGllant led no evidence whetsoeve,r at the triol on the tssue of repairs carried out on the respondent•s vehiele. secondly, tQat the learned judge erred in law in ravarsillg tJle, £ixld.ing oi;. the learnened Magiat,:ate that tha vebiole had been prope.tly l:'€:pa iread • Lflstly, on the question of eoats that having eat o aide the order of -the 1aplled Mag,i.atrate. ltbj.el'! bad d~~ ~ 1arp-pelJ.ant to 11 psy the respondent the priee of the vehicle" the lea.med judge should have held that the r'.'lppellont hnd substontial~y succ()ede~ in the appeal and should accordingly not have ordered . the appellant tq .be.a.;. t.be.. G:Oi:d.ra c,-os.ta- in the Ill.Sb. court alld m the District. .court,, on the quest.ion whatbe;r repail:s i.r~ oar~ied ·out by the appellant compa:cy ·on the responce:nt•s vehicle, the trial Magistrate f.oimd on bolanes .cf._ ~bility t.h~t tb.12 .1.ist-G,;1 r£-uai..i::s. WU-Q.._ ••• -./4 4 - cor.r..ied out. This was D ques·;;ion of foot., The High Court on first o_ppeal, reversed this f::nd.i,1g holding thcJt the trial court did not .:1ssign any reosons for iis finding., Instead, the learned judge proceGded to nssign the r( .Jaon why in his view tb.o Dppellont x-1pnirs compmiy did not cnrry out tr.i · it undertook to do. i He said that the vehiclG wos in t.i scrap condition, 11 bec3use no repairs or proper repairs ,_,ere onrried out by the appdlont right frdm the· beginning". W5.th respect, we think this was for fetched. Tb.e ).en.mad judge rloes not indicate when tl1e vehicle tQ,•f.8 scrap. It could b:we oocome- scr.'.:lp or not roadwortey for .reasons other then J.aok of r:c bod repairs. If an appellate court hos to di,t:!er from the finding of foot.; mode by the trial Court, very strong. rensons must be demonstroted. As Sir Kenneth o•connor president of -the i~ast 1,fricon court of Appeal hod occos~ -~-~s::i~k .. .i,o_ p:~T.@i)S Vs, SUIID!i.Y P0;3T Ltd _£1S5eJ 11 rt is a strong thing (or an appellate court to di.ff er from th.;:; .f:i.nding on a question of fact of t~e judge who triGd the cose and who h~s ~od the ndvontc:ige of seeing and heoring the witneGses. J.n apr,sllote cow:-t h::is :ndeed jurisdi- otien to review -the cv~cmce in order · to- d.etomino whether t.:he conclusion originalJ.y reached J.lzicn thc:it evidence t:,houM. suind,. But ~his is o jurisdi- ction which should le exercised with caution. It is not enough that the nppellnte eourt mi{,'nt itself hove come to o different cenolusion 11 o indiootGd in det.Dil the port..3 sn-~1li..:J ond the work cu~ried out._ It wos later mode part of·· tf1G· 0\'$1:::mt' 8 Gvidence, We the.ref ore do not understond when the lecrne; jude·e remarked that no evidence . ~.. w:a,s. .. le.d. .OP .this. J,)OiJJt b-y-.. tb.o _::i;:;:ie1rn~-:unle.ss-~, the ,, • • • • e /5 \ .. J 5 learned. judge decided to treat this document os a forgery. In .. the · circurastonces, we o{5·rc<: with thr- ~ppellont t~t the High Court WDS not jm,tifiGd in rGversir f the finding of the trial Court on this point. Witn this find~ng that tr~ ~rpellont company did carry out its side df the ogrEvfilent, it wos necessary that the respondent also perf.oro his side, i.e. making poyrac,nt for tne , work done and .lll£fteriDls.~supplied. Indeed., we are inc.lined on the eV'idence on .ri,cord, to nccopt the appellantrs version tbot it was the re·spondentts -own £a ult i.a. non-payment which. led to the non-delivery of the 1"ec:j_ole to him. With regard to the cloim of storage ch'.Jrges 9 we think in principle t_he owner of a vGh_iolo held under lien by the ga;-age .. owner after . . completion . . . of repairs, should be liable to pay ' storage chorg~ for all the days thot the vehicle is p.eld und.er .. lien. rn the ease o£ .£,S11. & _co. ve, J:_n:,_J :F,10!>_¥C-~ '3TOEfl.(.1967J E.A. 555 at pa~e -562 (H.I) SD-l CH!JlL::.8 lfu"W.J30I.J) P. stated ais follows~ I wo~ld lilro 11 ·to say a· word he·r,, about the q uas:t;i9n: of ..storagG cha rgcrn. _.'11he· considera.tion £oz: tb.io ohoq-.Ue foll into· two part's, first , . in.uape-0:t;, oi. materfals and labour ·supp~ied._ _ ~ .... for repotriPg :this motor cyol~ and. ·secondly ill .. ..respect of tb.e storagG phi:Ji;ges. Now it .is__ quite . ·clerir that th~ owner. of~i/ ven!cle which· goes into , - '., .P ~arrJ~~ {or ,rep~_ir~ ,.does not; n ~ - ox.psot to .. ·• ... pay storage ck·rgaa in respect "of the period \·rhen the -veb.iol..e is in possession of the garDge for the ·purposes of. repairs.~ Where; h?wevcn:" -the ·v;e;hicle ·is left, not for the p\U'poses of repairs, but for the purpose .of stor::ige 0:.11:,? ~md .[) __dee.ts ion _,_ is loter to be taken as to whe ,ber Dny repairs i~·-tQ. b_e ,do-'?-G. nnq j,.f'. ~o what t!•c re_paJ;r~ .o~e t.o __ . be, then I think the.re.. .;nu::,t. ~ -t~k:n to be an ·· -., .. :unpliec,i ogre~ll/,~ut between: ti , .P.□ rt~~/~ .(1f1.le:..ss ".: .. -, -' .,_ ...... /6 \ ~. - ., • • ,-.a,t ...:...._..:. ., .. .;_;.:.. ,.. 4 "' '. - \ .. .. _, ,, \ . • .. •••• ,I;;. • ...... ' . , • ,~ .' •• ' . • ; -t-~·-i:.: ·:~~ ·.••~,. .. - 6 - .,. of course there is some express pro_visions to the contrary) that the person who is undertakine; the stor3 ge is entitled to a reasonable sum in respect· of thot stornge". we think that the implie_d agreement to pay storage charges formulated in the obove ·case should also be read in ~ situation such as the present ~hereby the vehicle· is under lien. nut in the present cnse we feel disinclined to order stornge charges· os olaioed by the appclhmt oompany because the vehicle hc:id been in the custody of different :persons at d U'ferent periods, including an extended spell with tho court broker. For all these ~easona, and apart £rem this question of storage charges we nllow .the tippat1l· with costs, / Dl,T@ at Dlill ES SJ..UAM this dey of · 1993. µ. M. Mli:KAME Jll3TICE eOFo APPilll' ~• a ~L R. H. KISAIDA 3tETIC-.ill .OF APPl~Ji.L L. 11• MFALILA JUSTICE • ~ OF 11.PPJ.UAL • 7 .. - SEl~OR DEPUJ.Y RmlS'l'R..Jl• . , . . ...,