19820218 TZHC Dar es Salaam

\ / {f{( tv:,R(J ~hj IN THE HIGH qOURT OF TANZANIA

AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL CAS~ NOo 150 OF 1980 M.C. JIWAN • • • . . . . • • • . . . .• • • PLAINTIFF , Versus TANZANIA ZAMBIA RAILWAY AUTHORITY • • • DEFEND.ANT

JUDGMENT MAPIGANO, J. - The·.fa~t:s~-a~-,not! in: dispute at all. The plaintiff is a firm carrying on business at Mbeya. The. defendant is a Railway Authority established by an Act of Parliamento It -is a•corporation sole capable of ~uing ., ~Y::lr,emg sued.-,:,: . Ori or about the 7th September, 1978 the~plaintiff by his agents in Dar es Salaam delivered to the defendants as common carriers at Dar es Salaam goods +isted in- invoices Nos. 13245 arid 11';3,246; the property of tho plaintiff, to· be carried to Mbeya and to be delivered to the plaintiff. The defendants failed to deliver some of the goods namely 383 metres of t etoron-cotton and 10 dozens• of fancy shirts. The value of those goods was_Shs. 20,235/=o The defendants admit that they were in breach of duty. They· however admit liability in the sum of Shs. 1, 000/ = only. They are relying on-section 46(1) of the Tanzania- Zambia Railway Act of 1 975. That subsection provides that: "The liability of the Authority in respect of. any article specified in the Second Schedule, and.contained in any parcel or package, shall not, in any circumstances, exc~~d one thousand shillings unloss, at the time· of acceptance of such parcel or package by the Authority for carriage, the consignor or his agent declared that the value of such article exceeded one thousand shillings and paid, or agreed to pay, such additional charges as may

bespecified i..YJ. the Tariff Book in respect of such excess· value; and thereupon the liability of the Authority-shall not in any case exceed such declared value;" •.• ./2 2 - It is qµite.tru? that there was no declaration by •1 M 0 the plaintiff or. his agent. as to .the value of the goods in question·. But t.t is also plain that the :provision of the above em.bs:ection is only applicable to goods which are set out in the Second Schedule. ~he goods in this case did not fall under the ~chedule. ,4'.·cco:t,'(iingly . the· def~ndant cannot. escape liability. In the result I giv~ judgme:nt for the Plaintiff as prayed in the plaint plus costs. I • • V I , \..· ; ~ r-(··,1."· - .,,.,n...(I . (D.P. MAPIGANO)

JUDGE Dar es Saiaam 18/2/1982~ '7: , / .-....._, .. ...,.. ,... '~-,"..,~• ' { I ' ,, ·• ,· '