19980814 TZHC Dar es Salaam

IN TID~ HIGH COURT OT TANZANIA (DAR ES SALAAM DISTRICT REGISTRY) AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL CASE NOo112 OF 1997 KIRYA GENERAL SUPPLIES IMPORT ) i\.l'W_;!;XPOR·I' COMP ANY LIMITED PLAINTIFF Versus THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MINISTRY) OF EDUCATION ) 0 0 0 , • 0 • • • • • • DEFENDAN'r R UL I NG CHIPETA 1 .J.: . .Jn- this suit,. the plaintiff, Kirya General Supplies Iri1port and Export Company Limited, sued the defend.:mt, namely the Principal (now Permanent) Secretary, Ministry of Education, for recovery of Shs. 7,600,000/= for goods sold 2J1d delivered to the defendant by the plaintiff at the defendant 9 s request. The plaintiff also claimed interest at the rate of 31% on the principal sum from the dat:. the amount bGcame due to the date of judgment, Md. interest at the rate of 1.20/4 of the decretal sum from the date of judgment to the date of full settlemento As it tur.ned out 1 the defendant paid the principal, sum some ten daYS after the suit was filed. The only dispute now is whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest and, if so, at what rate. Mr O Mwidunda, lea.med state a_ttorney, submitted that the plaintff was not entitled to any interest because the plaintiff was supplying goods on credit and so the suit was premature. Secondly, he submitted that in ony case, the question of interest could not have been in the I!! I 2 contemplation of the parties, and that the defendant duly paid tax . ,. . on the principal, sum. In the alternative, i11r. Mwidunda submitted that if interest is adjudged to be payable, the~ it should be at the rates of 7% to 12%. Mro Lugua, learned c~,unsel for the plaintiff, submitted that the plaintiff was entitled to interest because he used his own money to buy supplie_s, which money would have earned interest had it been in a banko ' From the pleadings, it is clear that the plaintiff was awarded a tender to supply specified goods to Pugu Secondary School from time to time on the basis of local purchase orders; and it appears that payments used to be made from time to time as would be demanded by the plaintiff in invoices. Strictly speaking~ therefore, I do not t~ink that it was within the contemplation of the parties that in the event of any delay in settling the invoices, interest would be chargeable. However, as it took the defendant more than a year t.o settle the amount due, and as it appears that the defendant was goaded into paying the sum due by the filing of the suit, I think that the plaintiff is entitled to some int_erest, albeit a nominal one. I accordingly rule that the plaintiff shall be paid interest at 7% per annum on the priricipal sum from the date the suit was filed to the date the principal sum was paid. It is so ruledo B. D. CHIPETA JUDGE Ruling delivered in Chambers in the presence of/absence of advocates for the parties this 14th day of August, 1998. l//"i'j '. :::, t : • ,.....-, i, B. D. CHIPBTA JUDGE 14/8/1998