khaisa enterprises ltd vs principal secretary ministry of defence national service another 2019 tzca 166 18 june 2019

khaisa enterprises ltd vs principal secretary ministry of defence national service another 2019 tzca 166 18 june 2019

There was no contractual relationship, express or implied, between the appellant and the first respondent. Exhibit P1 was an invitation to treat, not an offer or acceptance. The consultancy agreement existed only between the appellant and Eurocopter. Therefore, no breach of contract or entitlement to damages from the respondents arose.

Citation
khaisa enterprises ltd vs principal secretary ministry of defence national service another 2019 tzca 166 18 june 2019
Parties
Appellant: Khalsa Enterprises Limited; 1st Respondent: The Principal Secretary, Ministry of Defence and National Service; 2nd Respondent: The Attorney General
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
18 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Existence of Contract, Breach of Contract, Agency, Damages, Consultancy Agreements
Source Language
English
Contract Law Civil Procedure Existence of Contract Breach of Contract Agency Damages Consultancy Agreements

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khalsa Enterprises Limited

Appellant

The Principal Secretary, Ministry of Defence and National Service

1st Respondent

The Attorney General

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a contractual relationship, express or implied, between the appellant and the first respondent
  2. 2 Whether the appellant suffered damages as a result of the first respondent's actions

Ratio Decidendi

There was no contractual relationship, express or implied, between the appellant and the first respondent. Exhibit P1 was an invitation to treat, not an offer or acceptance. The consultancy agreement existed only between the appellant and Eurocopter. Therefore, no breach of contract or entitlement to damages from the respondents arose.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed in its entirety
  • Respondents awarded costs