20110802 TZHC Dar es Salaam

20110802 TZHC Dar es Salaam

The appeal was dismissed because the 1st Appellant admitted in its pleadings that the Respondent repaired the vehicle, so proof of repairs was unnecessary. The only dispute was the cost, which the trial court found was supported by evidence and not disproved by the Appellants. The 2nd Appellant remained liable to indemnify the 1st Appellant under the insurance policy as established at trial.

Citation
20110802 TZHC Dar es Salaam
Parties
1st Appellant: Tanzania Posts Corporation; 2nd Appellant: Lion of Tanzania Insurance Co. Ltd.; Respondent: Mbinga Auto Motors Ltd.
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
2 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Resident Magistrate's Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Proof of Contract Performance, Indemnity Under Insurance, Pleadings and Admissions, Assessment of Damages
Source Language
English
Contract Law Insurance Law Civil Procedure Proof of Contract Performance Indemnity Under Insurance Pleadings and Admissions Assessment of Damages

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tanzania Posts Corporation

1st Appellant

Lion of Tanzania Insurance Co. Ltd.

2nd Appellant

Mbinga Auto Motors Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Resident Magistrate's Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent proved it repaired the Appellant's vehicle and the cost thereof
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd Appellant is liable to indemnify the 1st Appellant under the insurance policy

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the 1st Appellant admitted in its pleadings that the Respondent repaired the vehicle, so proof of repairs was unnecessary. The only dispute was the cost, which the trial court found was supported by evidence and not disproved by the Appellants. The 2nd Appellant remained liable to indemnify the 1st Appellant under the insurance policy as established at trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Respondent to have its costs