19981214 TZHC Dar es Salaam

I -- ~ IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR LS SALAAlV1 MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL CASE NO. 243".'-'oF 1988 HARBHAJAN PLAINTIFF versus KIL0lVIBiRO· SUGAR CO.LTD. j.SS.6.6:::::: ~:: DEFENDANT J U D G E ME N T The plaintiff, Mr~ Siggh, sues the defendants, Kilombero Sugar Company Ltd. foi:- a) Total sum of DG 10380· being ~~s of inducen1ent allowance; b) Damages for -repudiation of the said agreement; ·-:_"6. c) Speci~l damages of DG 1730 pm fro~ 16/5/1986 to 29/19S8: ·, interest at 25% from 31st April to l1st December, 1987 and thereafter at the court rate until the amount.is Jaid up with the plaintii<l's foreign ao~ount; d) Cost of this suit, Such other and further relief c1s may be dee1,1ed j_ll.st and proper" The facts of the case, as_ can be ascertained from the evideJi'c-:c:e, so fo far adauced in Court, are as follows:- The plaintiff, Har~hajan Singh (hereafter _to be refr~ed to a si~ply a~ tlfu, Singh) got employed by Kilombero Sugar Company as a Civil ?lmi:ker ,,._", ·* Engineer. He start~d.working with Kilombero Sugar Company on 7/11/1902. His first contract was to be a two year contract (17/11/1982 to 16/12/1984) but, whi_ch actually got signed on 17/12/1982 - thirty days later. His second contr~ct was a one year contract, 30/1/1985 to probably 31/1i/1985, but the c~ntract got siined on 24/5/1985. Then he had a a t~ird contract, from ·1/4/1986 to 31/3/1987, another one year contract but this got siggel ,n 24/7/1986, after a lapse of 90 days. Then, the fourth contraci, ~hich surprisingly, to Mr. Singh, was the last one became effective from 16/5/1987 to 15/5/1988, and agaifr got signed on 12/9/1987, after a lapse of 4 months. These contracts as.will be seen got signed montheslater after the first date of operation:. So, Mr. Singh got thrown into the habit of working on what is termed Oral Contracts; ~erbal words from the General Manager,· befora the actual contract got signed and ratified. ~ There was-~pecial evidefice with regard to the fourth contract, if I may say so. - '"'' .,.- After the fo~rth contract gbt:signed, S±~gEingh went on leave; 1.., 2 But before he went on leave, on 5/5/1988, the General Ivianager Mr. H.W. Cornmijs D!W., told Nir. Singh that when he (Mr; Singh) came back from leave his contract. this time would i,nly be renewed for six months and n, mor~~- · Indeed Mr. Singh went on leave and came back and reported ~ for werk on 6/5/1988. Indeed en 2~/6/1988 Mr. Singh renetvdd~a letter dated 20/6/~988(Exh.P3) telling him that his contract had or was expiring on 29/6/1988j an~ that he was to mike ·arrangements for his departure. ·rt is really this last conduct of the management of Kilombero Sugar Company that Mr. Singh cowplainB.· of if I understand him well. The complaint is four fold;- 1. That thene peaple, the management of Kilomb.ero Sugar Company,_ },~r. Singh • ~av~ all along.engaged on contracts which got signed days or months later and that this time they had shown by conduct that they were going to sign another contract with him: Why were th~y not giving him another contract, fur. Singh would seem to ask. 2. That the de~endants, Kilombero Sugar Company never told hiL1, when he was going on leave,that the next contract would be th·e final one. 3. That·the defendants cann6t refuse to renew his contract because after all they are indebted to him iti the total sum of Dutch Guilders 10380, being arrears of induc3ment allowance. 4. That because the defendant had all along, by conduct, given him a renewal cif contract, the last one ought_to have been to 28/8/1988, and so, he was ~laiming for paymeut of DG1730 per month from 16/5/1988 t_o 28/8/1988, with::.:imterest. Mr. Singh has had another com;,laint. There are some remit~ances which have not been done (JG.10380 I men tined earlier). Theire have not been remitted for reasons net known. · I hav~ understood Mr. Singh's case to be that one. The defendants case, howeimr, is the following;. They airee that Mt. Singh was their expatriate employee. They· also agree that for sometime he worked without valid contracts. But they refuse that it was because thei~ General Managei Mr. Commijs ~ave the plaintiff a go ahead to work on'~ral contractSc The defendants also, it seems to me, agree that some _remittances hav;e nlt been maidl.e fa"".' the account of iur. Singh abroad, as pro_vided .for in Mr. Singh expatriate terms. The defendants,however, say that the non-remittance of such money was ~ta~d by Mr. Singh himself who kai tampered with his account in Holland. The money, was sent to Mr, Singh 1 s acc?unt but it was brought sent to sender.~·~as Mr. Singliil 1 glc~t1t got closed. Bfforts were made by the defendants to find out what had hap:)ened to Hir. Singh is account, hu:f;:~ the reply tl1ey got from the 3 anything about his account: Four issues were drawn at the beginning of th~ ~earing of the suit. They were: 1. Did the contractual relationsh.ip of elflployment(employee/empl~yer) between the parties subsist after 15/5/1988? 2. Was there any subsequent breach of . the contract? 3. Did the plaintiff suffer any damages? ·.. 4. What reliefs, if any, are the parties entitled tu? Having narrated the fact oi the case, it is quite clear that· Mr. Cornrnijs the General Manager, all along made or allowed Mr. Singh to work even where the contracts had not been signed, with the hope that all would be well. Indeed four times the verbal assurance •. c~ Mr. Commijs became a re&itjyof I agree with Mr. hlwajasho that, Mr. Singh was perfectly entitled.t, assume that what iver the matter would b~ his contract(the las~ ~ne in this case)· would subsiit from 15/5/1988 to, ·say, 28/8/1988, ~shad been the case before: of course, Mr. Comrnij s ~ :r:t:lf:f)e:~<i!:ed even giving ca- potraying to 1vir. Singh that idea, that he would give oral extension of contract and later get it a~preved bJ his Board of Directors • . He said that he had no powers to renew contracts. He co~ld only reriew then for six months. But, Mr. Com~ijs would ~e in-forcied that it is not unhea~d of for General Managercto do acts which otherwise would ha~e been done by their Board of Directors, and then the Board of Directers ra~j-fY them. I am sure this was the case with Mr. Singh in this -:,mpany. I therefore answer that first issue in affirmative. The second issue is whether there was any subsequent breach of c6ntract I also answer that in the affirwative. Onoetfuhe Corupany had portrayed to M.r. Singh that a contract would. come, that con:tract was bound to go to its end - August, 1988, as we are told. Did the plaintiff suffer any dailiages? I think he did. What are th~se damages? These should be the salary and remittances to 28/8/1988. He should be provided with passage for himself and baggage to Punjab, ash~ ·him~elf.asks for in his evidence in Court. The defendant agreed to having remitted some money.but the money, having nowhere to be credited, went back to the senders. The money is the right of the plaintiff. Even if he is the one wh• might have caused it to wauder the wa;j it wandered, he is still /', entitled to it. He should be paid it f6rthwith. 7 4 I also award hi~ costs. In es~ehce, therefore, judge,meri.t is- entered for the plaintiff as .-- - I stated above. ,:·( j J.E.C~ MASANCHE JUDGE Mr. Mwajasho for plaintiff. Mr. Muhula for.defendants. J;)AR ES SALAAM: 14TH D~CliiillBER, 1989