guest chrimes limited vs national urban water authority 1997 tzhc 210 4 december 1997

IN T H E H I G H C O U R T O F T A N Z A N I A A T D A R ES ..SALAAM • C I V T L C A S E NO. 221 OF 1993 GUEST & CHRTMES LIMITED APPf7CANT VERSUS '-.vu NATIONAL URBAN WATER AUTHORITY - RESPONDENT .PJLLi__I_JLG KALEGEYA^j . • . M r ‘ U z a n d a ' learned Counsel for th e P l a i n t i f f . Guest and Chrimes Lt d , has prayed f o r j u d g e m e n t b y a d m i s s i o n in t e r m s of •XII, R u l e 4 of the C i v i l P r o c e d u r e Code., a n d a l s o f o r lP , VP to Prove interest on the principal s„,„ b y a f f i d a v i t . The l Z a" u t u°- U i e 1 a U e r P " a y e r , l8 fhH< h i K iK iil J-nclon, 11 ' U B m °!le of af"tJon w i l l s a v e tim e. As for t h e f o r m e r h» o n t e n d e d that th. Court of A p peal held that there is no disoute r r r ,il!“ 'andthatthat£imHn3to3et,,er pl j t i l l p I-" I1” 10' in 1 ° f U le w r U , «n k t a lenient o f defence P a r '"‘ 1,11,1 U) " p e s s a r y o r d er s tinder O.XTT, R .4 CPC. For c l a r i t y it is n e c e s s a r y to g i v e a b r i e f h i s t o r y of (hi- oT*n r:rr3 P1 . : t h e n a i ',iiff ^ d U e OWlrl9 anrt W a b l e * • — by t h e D e f e n d a n t ^ t h . ..e u m to the ; : ; ff b e ! n ,9 t h e ^ p r tc o „ f g „ o d , ; o u , on , 7 " y t h e p,aiiitlff to the .. . • » 0 » f « n d « n t 8 ’Counsel s u c c e s f u l l y took up a thl t Z ^ rL° b i T - i°n U,at the " * tt* r ha<! be en fil8d ln b r e a c h of that in the parties, wh i c h termn p r e s c r i b e d ,rb a r b i ttr a tti oo,n aand notT courtr8C °U r ** Bh° action. TheU Wcourt fllStheld, *>« throuah " ...... thesfi proceeding;; have c om m e n c e d q.iile prem a tu r el y . The suit is a c c o r d i n g l y d i s mi s se d Wit h a d i r e c t i o n that lh„ d i sp u te be submilted for arbi trat;ion...... ", 2 Mr. U z a n d a c o u l d not. s t o m a c h the s a i d f i n d i n g . He s u c c e s f u l l y a p p e a l e d to th e C o u r t of A p p e a l (C.A.T Civil A p p .N o . 1.5 \ 9 r)) wh i c h c o m : 1 u d e d " . . . w e a g r e e t h a t t h e r e w a s no d i s p u t e b e t w e e n the p a r t i e s which' n e c e s s i t a t e d r e c o u r s e to a r b i t r a t i o n a n d d i s m i s s a l of th e su it. In the e v e n t t h e H i g h Court judgment is; h e r e b y set a s i d e . T h e h e a r i n g of t h e su i t to p r o c e e d b e f o r e a n o t h e r judge . That is h o w t h e p r e s e n t c a s e r e v e r t e d to t h e H i g h C o u r t a n d c a m e b e f o r e me. Mr. U z a n d a h a s sfrenousl.y a r g u e d that though t h e r e is a d i f f e r e n c e of 50 c e n t s b e t w e e n t h e f i g u r e s t a t e d b y P l a i n t i f f an d that s t a t e d by Defendant, the D e f e n d a n t a d m i t t e d £ 3 0 , 3 49.92 for w h i c h j u d g e m e n t s h o u l d be e n t e r e d . As for A d m i s s i o n of the d e b t , Mr. U g a n d a c a l l s para. 3 of t h e w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t of D e f e n c e a n d the last p a r a g r a p h of th e C o u r t of A p p e a l j u d g e m e n t on p a g e 4 to h i s aid. In o r d e r to appreciate his a r g u m e n t s a n d th e d e c i s i o n of t h e c o u r t to be a r r i v e d at let m e t r e p r o d u c e the r e l e v a n t p a r t s of th e a b o v e stated. P ar a. 3 of the W r i t t e n Statement, of Defence., among others states. " 3 ...... t h e D e f e n d a n t a d m i t s th at t h e r e w a s a contract fo r s u p p l y of g o o d s w o r t h £ 3 1 , 9 9 1 . 9 0 between the P l a i n t i f f s a n d D e f e n d a n t but the D e f e n d a n t s t r o n g l y d e n i e s t h a t it o w e s the Plaintiff a t o t a l s u m of £ 3.1,999.90 a n d the D e f e n d a n t s h a l l p u t the p l a i n t i f f to v e r y s t r i c t p r o o f of t h i s a l l e g a t i o n . (a) T h e Defendant, s h a l l further aver that, in or a b o u t J u l y 1989, the P l a i n t i f f issued credit note No. 16 9 dated 1 0 . 7 . 1 9 8 9 for £ 1 , 1 6 4 1 . 9 8 in f a v o u r of t h e D e f e n d a n t . ; ....................................... 3 (b) T h e D e f e n d a n t s h a l l a l s o a vet that in or about. Ju l y , 1.992, the Defendant: p a i d to the Plaint iff d tot al s u m of f.16,^40,00 ...... .................... (c) F r o m w h a t is s t a t e d in p a r a g r a p h s (a) a n d (b) above, the D e f e n d a n t s o w e s the P l a i n t i f f a total s r!m o f f 1 3 . 7 1 0 , 4 2 o n l v o u t o f t h e c o n t.r a c t,u a 1 p r i c e of £ 3 1 , 9 9 1 . 9 0 for the g o o d s s u p p l i e d by the p l a i n t i f f to the D e f e n d a n t " . As r e g a r d s the last. para, o n p a g e 4 of the C o u r t of A p p e a l judgement, in C I V I L A P P E A L NO. 15 of 1 9 9 rj ( b e t w e e n Cu e s ! an d C h r i m e s Lt d a n d N a t i o n a l U r b a n W a t e r A u t h o r i t y ) , the r e l e v a n t e x c e r p t r e a d s as f o l l o w s , .we a re n ot c o n c e r n e d w i t h the c l o s u r e of the ciedit note: we a r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h the refu sal by N U W A to p a y the e x i s t i n g d e b t and the r e a s o n s g i v e n for t h i s r e f u s a l b e t w e e n the p a r t i e s . This admission in w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t of D e f e n c e t h a t e r r o r s w e r e r e c t i f i e d D u t s an e n d to the d i s p u t e , so w h a t e v e r _was. o w e d by_ the r e s p o n d e n t to t h e .a.BP§_l!.an£--jnust__be__x>aid b a c k " . (emplias is a d d e d ) . As for the order u n d e r w h i c h Hr. Uganda applies for judgement on admission, t he s a m e s t a t e s , ( O .XI I, R .4 CPC) " A n y p a r t y m a y at a n y s t a g e of a sui t, w h e r e a d m i s s i o n s of fact, h a v e b e e n m a d e e i t h e r o n the p l e a d i n g s , or otherwise, a p p l y to the c o u r t for j u d g e m e n t or ord er as u p o n s u c h a d m i s s i o n s he m a y be e n t i t l e d to. w i t h o u t waiting for d e t e r m i n a t i o n of a n y o t h e r question b e t w e e n the p a r t i e s ; a n d the c o u r t m a y u p o n s u c h a p p l i c a t i o n m a k e s u c h or de r , or g i v e s u c h j u d g e m e n t as th e c o u r t m a y t h i n k just". With respect to Hr. Uganda, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff, n e i t h e r the p a r a g r a p h of the Court, of A p p e a l judgement q u o t e d a b o v e n or p ar a. 3 of the w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t of d e f e n c e c a n be i n t e r p r e t e d to m e a n that the d e f e n d a n t s h a v e a d m i t t e d the debt to the I line uf £ 30 ,3 4 9 . 0 2 for w h i c h t h i s court should pdtm judgment under O.X.TT, R u l e 4 CPC. II in true that tho Defend,ml. admit having contracted with Plaintiff for s u p p l y of g o o d s w o r t h the s u m s t a t e d ( a l t h o u g h for r e a s o n s w h i c h are no t cl ear d e f e n d a n t c i t e s a f i g u r e w h i c h is 50 c e n t s a b o v e the cont.ract.ual sum) bu t c l e a r l y he d o e s not admit, the o u t s t a n d i n g d e b t to that tune. The issue is not w h e t h e r the Defendant, a d m i t s the e x i s t e n c e of t h e c o n t r a c t b e t w e e n t h e m but w h e t h e r he ha s p a i d the c o n t r a c t ual amount.. T h e o p e n i n g w o r d i n g in para. 3 of the w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t of Defence; p a ra . 3(b) a n d (c) d o not r e q u i r e a n y e x p e r t in E n g l i s h l a n g u a g e in o r d e r to i n f o r m a n y o n e w h o w i s h e s to be i n f o r m e d , that the d e f e n d a n t d o e s not admit, the s u m of £ 3 0 , 3 4 9 . 9 2 . At most, if Hr. U z a n d a w a s m i n d e d to e m p l o y the p r o v i s i o n of 0 . X I I , Rule 4 CPC, he w o u l d h a v e a p p l i e d for j u d g m e n t o n a d m i s s i o n for the s u m of £ 1 3 , 7 1 0 . 4 2 w h i c h t h e d e f e n d a n t c a t e g o r i c a l l y a d m i t s in Para. 3(c) of the w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t of d e f e n c e , for he s a y s t h a t the r e m a i n d e r s u m has a l r e a d y b e e n paid. The balance therefore is a s u b j e c t of c o n t e s t b e t w e e n the p a r t i e s a n d c l e a r l y f a l l s o u t of the a m b i t of O . X . I I , R .4 CPC. It d o e s not mat.ter w h e t h e r the defendant is t e l l i n g lies or no t - so l o n g e r as it is a contenstible issue the s t a t e d p r o v i s i o n of the law do n o t apply. A g a i n w i t h r e s p e c t to Mr. Uzanda, the Court, of A p p e a l judgement, d i d not conclude that the s u m o w e d is £ 3 0 , 3 4 9 . 9 2 - the w o r d s " . . . s o w h a t e v e r w a s o w e d by the R e s p o n d e n t to the A p p e l l a n t m u s t be p a i d b a c k " are v e r y far f r o m tha t a l l e g e d definily. T h e p l e a d i n g s w e r e before) th a t v e r y c o u r t a nd n a t u r a l l y t h e just, ices m u s t h a v e s e e n p a r a . 3 (b ) a nd fc) h e n c e t h e g e n e r a l w o r d i n g used. F or t he c l e a r r e a s o n s e x p l a i n e d a b o v e the first p r a y e r for judgement by admission in the s u m of £ 3 0 , 3 4 9 . 9 2 is r e j e c t e d . As h i n t e d u p o n ab o v e , th e p r a y e r c o u l d h a v e h ad b a s e if it had b e e n limited to the s u m of £ 1 3 , 7 1 0 . 4 2 . Mr, U g a n d a a i d not m a k e h is a p p l i c a t i o n for t h i s num. A j u d g e m e n t on a d m i s s i o n u n d e r O X - I T R u l e 4 c a n o n l y be e n t e r e d u p o n application b y a parly. Hr. Uzanda is Bti.ll at l i b e r t y to m a k e a f r e s h a p p l i c a t i o n for the r e l e v a n t sum. As for th e p r a y e r to p r o v e i n t e r e s t b y affidavit., e v e n if his first prayer had been granted, I r e s p e c t f u l l y say that I have f a i l e d to se e th e b a s i s for the same. T h a t th e P l a i n t i f f is in London is i r r e l e v a n t - for he w h o a l l e g e s m u s t p r o v e regardless of th e c o s t s i n v o 1 v e d . Direct, e v :id e n - e c a n b e s u b s t i t u t e d in f i t t i n g s i t u a t i o n and v e r y e x c e p t i o n a l circumstances. S u f f i c e to s a y t h a t Hr. U z a n d a h a s not b o t h e r e d to e s t a b l i s h any. T h e c a s e w a s r e m i t t e d to the H i g h C o u r t for h e a r i n g . What Mr. U z a n d a s h o u l d h a v e p r o p e r l y a p p l i e d for (for n o n - a p p e a r a n c e of the D e f e n d a n t s ) wars l e a v e to p r o c e e d e x p a r t e o n c e it w a s p r o v e d that the d e f e n d a n t s w e r e s e r v e d - O. TX. R u l « 6 CPC, for c |mt ity, even for t hi s avenue., it w o u l d n o t h a v e r e l a t e d to the i n t e r e s t s a l o n e b u t to w h a t is c l a i m e d and d i s p u t e d in the w h o l e suit. For t h e r e a s o n s g i v e n a b o v e b o t h p r a y e r s a re a c c o r d i n g l y refused. (L. P. Kalegeya) JUDGE 4 \ 12 \ 9 7 R u l i n g d e l i v e r e d t o d a y the 4 t h D e c e m b e r . 1997 in the p r e s e n c e of Hr. Uzanda. (L. B, K a l e g e y a ) JUDGE 4 \ 12 \ 9 7 M r. U z a n d a I pray for l e a v e to a p p e a l . (I,. R . K a l e g e y a ) JUDGE 6 Court: Tl),J r iuhl of a p p p n l is a p a r t y ' s r i g h t an <3 Mr . UzancUi c a n h a p p i l y u t i l i s e it. A T D A R ES S A L A A M U>. B . K a l e g e y a ) 4 T H DECEMBER,. 19 97 JUDGE