20190616 TZHC Dar es Salaam

._ l

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (DAR ES SALAAM REGISTRY)

AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL CASE NO. 177 OF 2015 ~ JNM MINING SERVICES LTD .......................................... PLAINTIFF

VERSUS MlNERAL ACCESS SYSTEMS TANZANIA LTD ................. DEFENDANt

JUDGMENT ~•=:~: ~~nt: Date of last order: 16/5/2019 ··'<·i · ·< · r . ;! ..... ·-~:t lt.- . l-. 19/6/2019 '.'];': '.)i;; The plaintiff who is represented by Mr. Masawe Fulgence, learned advci~titfiit~f) is a Limited Liability Company incorporated under the law of Tanzania~t*:fe;i~"r1~~i •.,,; ; • :. ~•. • - 1 • ,,\I. ·i<;:} 1'.-"c provides environmental impact assessment; topographical survey, min~f1(- .· .:·: ~- "/:~~---.' ;·>:~!:{~:~;~( -;~~·.:{: _·,: {\f~ _; exploration and consultancy in Tanzania. The Defendant who is represented:, .·. ·;\> //.· . :_':·-~:'>){ ~: ~~~-. { >~- :-'<)>.- by Mr. Denis Tumaini learned advocate, is also a limited Liability compaljy:k: ::;;i~·);t:</::: carrying on mining business in Tanzania. ;;;:~{:[\}} In a thirteen (13) paragraphed plaint covering three (3) typed pages,:}t1)¢t:·;:-·;.·)·'. ··, :~{ ': -~(:.#·:~J·. -~ '. ~ .!;:~ < '> ;·_. plaintiff seeks a number of reliefs, which for clarity, I quote as follows ?: O:'.,l ..., ,,i;~·. ;, . . ~- • .· t: .: <if·.''.•• :I a) Special damages at the tune of Tshs. 120,950,000/= being the '.Jos~t:;,~,.:i. ~ f·:·. .}-~ ... ~-:;;;:(···· -~:!~::/:. -~_,.. suffered in preparation and purchase of the equipment for .ft.i~tr ;_'·>~-::(::~-~-- ,~ -~ ·.f:.~t·\·-!.·. : ·:-,'_.,~,-~-. :- . execution of the consultancy agreement. iG~i}f({/:"•t:·.·.·r .::>~~:~;;:)_\~.; ._: .._.i:-t~· . ·--f: b) Interest on specific

damages at the 31% per month from the day;fpfj, :;.·:·?·~~-· -~ . · ·::-Ii~:~-/~--t·: '.· :~·-· ~}\t\;.. {: filing the counter claim to the payment date. ~t\tt~;.:r H~:r-:·:'. 1 ".) , . ·.f -il. •:,a:;•.:.: . •• •• • •• 1·,_ 1' -·-: . ~· .. . , ,:. "f. . ' • ,. _ \i~l ~l ~'.'I. c) General damages for the breach of the contract at the tune of Tsfis:lt~f~W•::;:t'.{)f {r:;·~.tfa~J ~:_. :· 'I}{ 100,000,000/- · f\:~'tf;'.~JiJt:\'/.'f :~ ~~:::~~rt~;i:~~\his court will deem fit and just to grant. .• JiI*lf!;f;~~-, Briefly, the plaintiff claims that sometimes in September, 2014 he ente.r,ed}>V{f. >.·: . l ~; < ·. \tJ?t. ~~----~\ -t_:'./·;~--~.1 into consultancy service agreement with the Defendant in which the PlairjtiffJttt,:>::\J :.,-::1,.·,,1:i;;.·::\'i':-t{:_ :-· ,,: '}: was to undertake a number of assignment at Mbesa Mine as described iri,;:{~~f~}f;ii'.i(::}l~ :-~, '.'~··. •' _7: •~\ ,~_...::j;;,.:._·.• -.--.J , j Schedule to contract. The plaintiff did mobilization of resources that incl~8~gf.::!F\t!J;~~ft machines, equipment and human resources ready to undertake ,~theti: '. '.,.-~<~' ...~~', assignment but the Defendant was not ready to let the plaintiff executeJh¢~:/l /i:;r_·: ·: r~- <~:-) ~ (~-.:. ·-:·1 .~---> .·.:-'/~t ··.. :,:~./·~~~; _. •,_' contract. It is alleged that the act of Defendant of denying access to the.f.:}/d,<2·~·-: :~:~~rt.:~J i ;~~:~J~~_:;~~-

'. ,_·::~1 plaintiff is as termination of the contract which has caused huge finan~!~!l~\~;':~fjf •: p~$~1r~pf~,~ ::~-:~ loss to the plaintiff. :t'.·~lJ} ··J:.:·:}f:ft:\ ._;};ilt}. :~1{.,:f·< · In support of this suit the plaintiff called two witnesses. PW.1 Joseph Doha,J,tt·;, ·t~:,):·"/ and PW.2 Michael Amon. . ;"'.\Lt!I?[t In defence the Defendant called one witness. DW.1 George Frey Eusea.Sf;::i('.\ ;{:1,~Ji:,/ ·?··.:\?" 'i'-;::.\t~·::: ... } Three (3) documentary Exhibits were tendered for the Plaintiff's case. Th~_tr_ :i~ /. . ·: •.· .;;5J-s:' .•.··.: ~ .·.. ' " is the Consultancy Service Agreement (Exhibit P.1). Correspondence Em~llst;. ;}(:~ ~:).":;~ \J ~\- ~::~·.-.- '. f . between the plaintiff and the Defendant [Exhibit P2] and Tax inv~,:~:~{/{:~. ·-2'.'·__ · ··-:/t•/~~ :~J ~-I".·· ... :~_',,, admitted as [Exhibit P3] · ';fir:~{:.::..:_ . . , ·t- ·;Y:Ji:/t!J~·;~·J;,_. The Defendant had not tendered any documentary Exhibit. ~&~r1, -t~,~h.~.ettJ_, l-···1-~~,. ~r~ The issue drawn and agreed by both parties at the commencement oft~i5,} ~- :j~i:t:<;: ' ::~·;? .J { •-· '. ,._.::-:"'·(:~:.,~ case are as follows· {?:fh ·~-~:,:,>f}t~<: 2 • ,i/,i, · •If'..· ,, . I'I- ....-.:.. .• .:·. ~· . f ; }'' ;: '.

1. Whether there was the breach of contract? if it is in affirmative.

2. Whether the said breach was justifiable.

3. To what reliefs are the parties entitled. //::l)_?:-. Led by the learned advocate, Mr. Fulgence, PW .1 testified to the effect -'f~~t{i:'.t~tJ':. :\: i: :··<'. -.~~-:~·-./;:~~ . :,:·~;·1,. -_ .. _~-. the plaintiff entered a Consultancy contract with the Defendant on 5/9/20i4{J1/Jt :;.f\ .~-'. : .--t f ;:··.,~· ~~~-. ' .' :~(;.;~( The agreement was based on the condition that the plaintiff was to provlciet::l~:t;t~?i~\ \·;·]_::\_•~,~-..:if~~~~/[~· . -•}·< \ Consultancy to the Defendant on a Copper mine situated at Mbesa Tund~n:ia,!:Gi;~:;t:.J"ff,) :• "~.~~ •:'; •-• J;~::;:~·;2}\; •:_~I Ruvuma Region as per (Exhibit P.1]. /:.~ >~i~'.trtit--·\~-t: . 'K:l~l\i~: }.>~- PW.1 proceeded to testify that the agreement was for (6) months, which fjasf: ·_ '._- .- two phrases. Firstly, Preliminary Study and later Final Report. The pla,6:~}tt~k:~{t{::'.( :·~~>:\: ~~·~~ \~'}!; .f~. f?: ·_.: only managed to do the 1st phase while the 2nd phase did not proceed as~t.h~_ti!fif.~ Defendant faulted to surrender the cite. ~~1ilt~I The plaintiff brought item with other costs and communication w_ifh-{'l~itft<</~:.: .. ·.:.,-: ·=· ~/,}:. ~, ~~-~:-; • _; ~-.;: ~- ~~:. Defendant through email but the Defendant did not honor her obligatio:n>~I·?':·:· : :,:_ . . ·-_. _: r~. ·::!:?::r.~: _·. >-: ~ -f-:}~. The email correspondence was admitted as Exhibit P2. PWl told the court·t '.t>:::·

~'.i,·, -;~~~;~·--;\/,i).;,_: :·t· 7;~:;-:._ ---~1 ::~ that she has incurred a total cost of Tshs. 120,950,000/= for all equipn,e_nt}.·~.::. \?-·. · preparation. l: :\~ .:•1l~:-{{: ;;_··>.; -··: .--~: .....· ··11, -h ·: 4~·:"t ·. , ·: ,,·" ·t •~ ~ . • "'~! '. ' .. ":' :-• ~ ."\·_· ·'-~·:.tt ;r ,,-i~,: ·;. ~ - ._:. -. PW2 testified that, Wing Gate Garage stopped the relationship with PlaiR~i~Jf:~.~:-~;~;;i.: :_: : since the later failed to pay the former as per offer of payment which:/~fg1':J~~.:~ff'f::'-·: ~·~~~\:;t:- _. . -...·_ {~{:~~>~-- .' delayed. The tax income and order form was admitted as Exhibit P3; ?1?,f~;_·,1-: 1 lr .. _ ·:~;; -:' i ;_ -}i· ?.,. i -·' !' ;::::;.~,;: ) In defence DWl led by his learned counsel Mr. Tumaini testified to the eff~~,;._ ,··-~ t:/·\/ . .-.1-.-,,~(._:, -{~ ;~;-.· : ;.~~: :. that the Defendant had never breached the agreement since as per--ltie··'./fi t,:)··>· 3 -;~• ! .J. t . . ,._. :. .$-' >~:-i;,'. ' { ' :, .: ~ ..•. ~;~.) t'. . "'· ....;· .Jo. • •• ; , • <: . .·,1 • ' . ·: ~l-. ,·j .- J~~r1~1t,,IE ·~i,~~~,: ~t · ,-, :. ;,,·.~::.:,: fRt' • #,,.s:.~ agreement entered between the parties nothing had been done. The plainliffy:.;;~;(A ' < • ~,:··;,:',~~> iJ>:j~;~- .(.:}· (~~I had not issued a Notice of Breach as per item No 5 of Agreement. .'i{-~:Ut{\ (<t::.- _.·-~:~-~.:~..::.r. .!.ti~~:j\_~-:. /f .:~. Being cross examined by Mr. Reginald DWl

testified that as per ::the j~rr! _;_, _._ .. ,, _::•,:':'-' :t;{':r.-,., :·} Agreement the client was required to pay a fixed rate of USO 145 of drifl(rjg}\?r1:}\.· --, ~~:~;~: ,~ (~[~,~-r~;>;• . · :,. -~ completed at Mbesa mine to the consultant. DWl told the court that tne::i:~\)\ < : . J~-~; .;, ·~:·~:-~1;;;.~-~i:~-;. :~ /·_.;~:;-, > agreement did not say the method to be used in drilling. . -f'.'.,:(;'.;J{f;Ttf;:'i.'.}}\:: Before I venture to deliberate on the framed issues at this juncture, )[~.)s~tfli!1';lff f{~?!i.ilt~~tl t '.; :r~• ~·· : ~ • z~• -'_4, pertinent to state the principle governing proof of case in civil suit. \Tt,:~~L ~: .. -,· / : •I·.•, •- •., • • • ~ •. ~ ~ • ,,:,,,•. ·. • ,• general rule is that he who alleges must prove. The rule finds its ba~~t~:q:{[}~~; :~{\: :·_ from Sections 110 and 111 of the Law of Evidence Act [Cap. 6·:(tti:)!:fr•j:\'·./ 2002] which among other things state. j ;"_~{k~flf~~~~~::;$~ -..~· ~~:_f~~~--l,,;.~.,:r,. ~.t...:..... "110 (1) whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist. (2) When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. . ·"; . i~., .. ... ,.. . . l. ·?::~~~.- )~f\.'.? . ~;~:~h;u: :~do;:ir;o~~ne:i:~~::::~i:;:::::h:~ .•jilii&j[;; either

side . ./';,; ~,.,,~, s.. :,,;.,. fit·, ·, ~l-f~;;_.'~i;i~-- :~~;-~-~-; lf:1~:,~ ~-~j;:~ Two cases of the Court of Appeal of Tanzania namely the Attorney Gen~t~J:.,. "f'-tJt.t'. .\"·-~·::: /--:~; ~ ·~- -~- ;~;~ :/<·:_:. r and Two others v. Eligi Edward Massawe and Others, Civil Appeal.,,;·:•)·:,:~;:~-,::; .\;{~ :_, -:;,:::~' ~-·~\-·: ~':t:·<;:. No 86 of 2002 and Ikizu secondary School v. Sarawe Village Cou.115:_U:;}f~~I'.:.f./: 4 l. · . !f•, , if<"· ~,, · F: :_·. t~: ·\ t::: ~:~~ < :. _--~: -..i; . ,' 'I. : • 't :_:, ·' 'tv- '.·· l f f l i· .£~}- ' '..-'./:. ...- :,~'": ·~-. ,' ~ . " .-. '"fl:~ ~r- .. ?:'i,· . ~-~'.: . ~. \"·.· .;- !~~ • Civil Appeal No 114 of 2012 (all unreported) are elaborative ortthis :.: : ,, point. Similarly, it is a Principle of Law in Civil Proceedings, that the party with legal -_- burden also bears the evidential burden and the Standard in each case on a_,-- :· balance of probabilities. ·:-~~-- •. ·- ·i.' ., .;~ .: ·. - } .f In addressing a similar scenario on who bears the evidential burden in civil~_, i J [ cases. The Court of Appeal of Tanzania in Anthony M. Msanga v. Penina: - 1 (Mama Ngesi) and another Civil Appeal No. 118 of 2014 (unreported) - ·_ - - . cited with approval the case of in Re B (2008) UKHL 35. Where Lord· _ - - Holfman in defining the term balance of probabilities held that: - '. ,.· "If a legal rule requires a fact to be proved

(a fact in issue) a judge or jury must decide whether or not it did happen. . .... There is no room for a finding that it might have happened. . .•··. That law operates in binary system in which the only values one O and 1. The fact either happened or it did not. If the tribunal is left in doubt the doubt is resolved by a rate that ~, : ~ i ~ . .. •· ~.' one party or the other carries the burden of proof. If the . j party who bears the burden of proof fails to discharge it, a value of O is returned and the fact is treated as not having happened. If he does discharge, if a value of 1 is returned to and the fact is treated as having happened" ,· .. ' s . ·. . :.,·.1•. . ,~ •. :•· Generally, as I hinted above, it is a cherished principle of law that generally'.••••·· in Civil Cases the burden of proof lies on the party who alleges anything•:--1~/ ·,'. ~ : .. . -. ~-· ·:' ... ·, . ,· favour. After concluding the hearing of the case, both parties submitted thelr·Written / opinion and advised this honourable court accordingly. . . :i: ~ ·,j ..:." · At this juncture, I have with keen interest carefully considered the evidend:~f ·;-:J . ·~, ~ .' .· _.· ;;:<: ;.· ,:i; ·. · adduced by both parties and to a great extent the reasoned final submissions}••!,),. · of both the respective learned counsels for the plaintiff and Defendant.· · · :, ·.; i. As stated earlier in this judgment, the

first issue reads: Whether there·-·.wa·~ \ · : L '- - .. . . · ' ', a breach of contract. It should be born in mind that the consultancy S~rv.ice·; . .. .. . ,- - i\ _•:::"::· court· ':i, Agreement entered between plaintiff and Defendant was admitted in as Exhibit P1 and forms part of the record of the suit as per Order XI.XI .· :;, : -f/ · Rule 7 of Civil Procedure Code, [Cap. 33 R.E 2002]. Of cobrse. ,i ·.. t · antecedents of this case is the consultancy Services Agreement entered.-or:,: ·· · i- ·:· /: 3/9/2014. The Plaintiff is alleging that defendant has failed to handover ~t,~; :·:: · ·, · site to plaintiff to execute the Contract for reasons which are not cle_ar to?· ~ I ' t· :, · plaintiff. . .· . : :. . ~~··· .. . .. ; ! . ' ·. - , During the hearing, the plaintiff case narrated that the act of defend8r-itJ>f; ;; /:: . , · · • • : < : • - • -~ ~ ••• : ; •• ~ " • denying access to the plaintiff to perform his obligation under the contract,·· , :'. ~ .\ · amounts to termination of the contract. The advisory part denied t't~g~:~ l-· .; -;· .. -·'.- allegations and fu.rther stated that there is no proof of the said purpb"~ed_'. . :.:-: breach pronounced by the plaintiff. ·--- . 'i•'. 6 The position of Law in our legal fraternity sound very clear as held by;:•~µrt;Ji~0t}\ :.} ' . ~r-=~J~).-.·.~·.i·~-g_:.~~r:·~\i~\ ..- - ~- of Appeal of Tanzania in the case of MAKERI WASSAGA

v. JOSHUAJ:t':J~: . -~,. ·.,.,. -\_\_\:. ~ ·._ -···1r~:<J:1r:~ · · MWAIKAMBO & ANOTHER (1987) TLR 88 at page 92 that: - . '.;i; ,Jf~.jJ/. :..... . < "Party is bound by his pleadings and can only succeed according to what he has averred in his Plaint and proved in It f~llows t~erefore t~at it i~_tri~ principle ~f ~~ t~~t p~rties ar~ bour~o,!]~it~~,t~~ their pleadings. This pos1t1on ,s settled in c1v1I ht1gation. It 1s throµgf.l.J:;fJ:;. ; 0 .:: pleadings where parties establish their cases they intended to prove.·,:;$;;:it}\'.Tr:j}\,,) ·... :-:~-- .'·:. -·~1 .:·:~,-} ~-'· ·. :... ,_"':~- is the duty of the parties to the case to clearly and categorically estabiish i :r.'.; •·:t··f/. ~_:·_":~: -~. {/. ~~.if/_~~-; 1"' i;, _·: . ~'.r:, :-~_: their cases before adjudication. In that context therefore, pleadings ar~~nt.~ct.lt~;:.'J<\J.:~.~ ;:-~';,,;;;;;- · •. "T',._;;:£1.,,1 -;,,¢•,{~t{' ·"'!'i"!!'li',,--."':7-,,, r'"'!.;..,,; . .....,,.t' 'Mf{~l- map so to say to any given civil litigation which should show the destination}\(').· . . _.:/ '.= ·': .-.. ,t '}.:Z:• : : <·:. the parties to the case intended to reach. ·//.,--·.;_. _:~{'fi\·:'.\··:,:_t/: .i"'0:,;.1 it\jf \& The Supreme Court of Nigeria in ADETOUN OLADEJI (NIG) V NI~E~lNfj}l"'f'.": BREWERIES PLS S/C1 2002 held as follows: t::.//:::tf L- ~\j' ·:: 1 :::::::.::::i~::::::::::::::::i:::~::::::i:~y::~ .l

il~l!tr~;l.~,,t~••.•·'• pleadings or put in another way, which is at variance with .~'""' ,., i, A, the averments of the pleadings goes to no issue and mu be disregarded" Now if I may quote paragraph 6 and 11 of the plaint, they read .:,·.~ . ~!:rl.:1 it' , :;y ; t"i}I'. Yf· <r, ·:.·_ }\) r.; '. ·,;: ·. : :··./· -_ 6. The act Defendant of denying cases to the plaint to perform his obligation under the contract amount to termination of the contract and this has caused huge ......... financial loss to the plaintiff who had mobilized resources ready to work at the Defendant site and hence was unable to attend other assignment" 11 That the Defendant is in breach of contract by failure to give access to the site to plaintiffas Defendant who was required to introduce plaintiff to the village authority and prepare drilling paddings and access." - . >' ~. . ~...).:·· ' The question in issue is whether there is any evidence led by the plaiX{liJ~il~[}tl'i ,:7~~;7\·:_fr:-~:~~; :~5!.~ Support the above averments. ,;·::: ;J .•'I\.~.-·<·~;. ,. •· , . ;:,,;.· . ;: :>:-: ·, .• . ·; t•. ;h{ l , 'i :.:·.. .·_ ·:,\',,; ... >\; '.'.)_~ _- .\)- 1 have gone through Exhibit Pl, P2 as well as PW3, nothing suggests in·:,}erm~i; _/:J:t~(,: .': of evidence for such breach. I have painstakingly gone through the Clausel : ,f · · · governing termination stipulated in the Consultancy Services

Agre';iv~n;t,L'r \. which requires a Written Notice specifying the breach, but unfortunate1¥1J:JJ'e{:; t.;-.:· plaintiff has neither tendered the same nor explained and elaborated.·a{:to;' • •. ~'..;\: . . . . i -~- . ,{ ·t '1 ·',f;' 1 • ' whether she served the Defendant a Written Notice specifying the bt~aJi~.£1; :tu.,:;:<,; _? f:i~?f<-:: _;·_!,'}~'~::{'~::'. :;: In the absence of such written Notice specifying the breach. I find h~£Q4fg t;. f;( t '·.:::;. :, rule out that there was a breach of contract by Defendant. The clause governing termination for ground of breach reads: _':;!''... 11 This agreement may be terminated by either party only for cause, which the party in breach fails for remedy within 8 .: .. -~- •· ;, 1·-· ., seven 7 days following receipt of written notice specifying the breach. Such notice shall be servedby hancl or sefltoy agreement for remedy. 9 • .. • ir,ii{l:flfl on the finding on the first issue which I have just disposed of negatively:/-'tt~r:'Y' \/f · :~:~~<· ·:_.' ~: , ·:;:~{!\" ~ ;. ;. '-;_~::.. is therefore now idle to discuss it because there is no proof of brea~,%h_·· of'i(~!-::}?;\/,: ·. ,,• ~· . ~ .· . ': '\.~--~- •.t', ' i' ·.if). . ··;tf~:Lh: ··,\" ' contract as per the agreed terms in the contract. ;::,~;'.r:::lfnJ.1U·· Finally, but not least. To what relief are the parties entitled to. The co11t~hts!ffi·~·;}/?:~ t;,t¾·:.. -.~~:~.

~::?·>~J: ~ .;~ .;/, . of this judgment are sufficient testimony that the Plaintiff deserves nbtKJri~:;NJfi:.·«t{ r.w:~·:_· t··' r~· _,:_,_.-:..,·:-.~-;;\. {~:.• among the entire reliefs sought from the court at page 3 of the Plainf:il:~:~J;J]!?;.({~[ ·f1,t! ~-,.·/?'• t} ,:_r ,{u11: -~rr:~ plaintiff has miserably failed to prove the case to the standard requi~~i~;Jn !Wit!l}!~~~; •: .: ,._ ;".',. :a"1in:-.t-. t •• ·• civil litigation that is on the balance of probabilities. But, in all fou~$, Jh_¢ti "J~?.:<}.· .' Defendant deserves costs in the matter. Consequently, this suit is dismissed in it's entirety with costs. ~- -:,-~--.. ~·.:; :. ':,t~~i ::. ~t, .. , ·fii~\,!iltI~. . ,, , . I,·, .. • ,,. A.F. NGWALA L; -S})tit'!··Ii:-~;m~ :(> . .·/i.i. :s'-':.,·; ,~ . -~ JUDGE . ..., ,,.,, .· ··t'· i:·ra- .. ,:/·-..;.:~;. . ~-~;:;__~. J ~ - 19/06/2019 :- 1· ·~ :,,-,\. :_ t,·. ~- ~ : ,: • r:, ~ · 1,,; ..J(j ?'' )=i- .1[,ltJrjfbl•\ 1,., w . . . ., - ' \ . • c;,. 10 ... Coram: Dr. A.F. Ngwala, l For Plaintiff: Mr. Dennis Tumaini h/b for Mr Massawe (Adv) For th~ Defendant: Mr. Dennis Tumaini (Advocate Massawe for the Plaintiff. Court: Right of Appeal to Court of Appeal of Tanzania explained. ~- A.F. NGWALA

JUDGE 19/06/2019 11