19880130 TZHC Mwanza

_ _ _j IN TEE HIGH COURT OF TANZ.ANIA AT IlZ{.,,":.NZ,A IIC CIVIL CAiSE HOo 3 OF 1987 Ivi/S SIII?.1-,.TI Tiii.nJCTION & JJLECTRICAL SUPPLIES ococooooooo PL.ti.INTIFF Versus ¥u1L~GO GJJi'ITifUiL ZNTEi:lPB.ISE CO:MPllTu"Y LilUT:ill ) ALIAS r,JJJ.&GO "FURNITUiIBS & BUILDTI'iG CONTPJi.CTOR +-_ _ _ _ ,_w _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _..;;;..,._ _ o <I_ • o_ o o_ D~~'T o _ _ _ __ JUDGMENT r,friALUSl.1'lYA, J,. This is a suit for damages in the sum of Shs.720 1 000/= for loss of business a:dsine from the wrongful closu.re of the plaintiff's business by the defendant. The plaintiff i11/S Shirp.ti Injection and Electricc.l Supplies wore the tenu.llts of the landlord M/S Mn.lago General Enterprises Comp'?-nJ Ltd. - the defendants in this cc:,.se., It is not in dispute that the defendant as the la."11.dlords or a{;,ents of the 12.ndlord did lock tho workshop of the plaintiff f:r-om 27/12/1986 to 3/1/1987 - for about a week or soo The plaintiff conducts the : "'I-- ft>'. ' business of ro1x1.iring injection pumps of motor --~~&'oles. ~e i~ :-,, ·;. . ., ·e ~ ~ ,_' a lawful tenant of the defendants in th;:i.t he ~s not ~~arJ'_ears,of, rent. . ~ 'r" ... ........ ~ The plaintiff could not tell an to uhy the l,cWilorJi nad de~ded\~<;)' do wl1c.;.t he dido The defendGJ1t hinted 2,s to whyill ;IA ba8.1D,ved 8.S he dido· Ile su.id that the plaintiff h::..d -been lent someAJ~c secon~:.hand · . , .. ' ' 'rt tyres but refused/neglected to retu.:.-n them in time, and so he decided ' • to punish him by closing his workshop with a pa..dlocko 1rillo.t the defend2nt did w2:.a patently unlc:w:f'ul., If the plaintiff wc::s refusing or neglecting to rotu.m the tyres, the proper thing was to · sue him in court or re1)ort him to the policeo The step taken by the defendant in taking· t~ie lc1w in ~is own hands 1-ms unlawful, primitive and totally uncalle·d for. Ile is therefore li11ble in damages for such wrongful a.ct of· injuring the plaintiff 1 s business. Now,_ to what dai11c1.fses is the plaintiff entitled to? The plaintiff hn.s put it at Shs.720'J000/=o· Ile claims that he was getting about Shs .. 60 9 000/= per day ands~ for seven days, he lost Shso420,000/=o Then he claims Shso300,000/= for a business b.'"e lost on a particular customer, namely 'l'aRoMo Bukobao It is said that one ]Ytro .811med . .Uly Mbe,e (PW2) of T.RoI:Io Bukoba. on 29/12/1986 had sent six injection pu.mps and other items for ~ep~ir to the plaintiff, but had to go elsewhoro when he foui1d the plaintiff's workshop closodo On this particul2.r customo2~ th0 plc1intiff se. id that he lost an income of Shs. 300,000/= which he -would have got. - 2 Well, in my consid0red view damages in th-c sum of Shso720'J000/= which is clc.imed in this c.-:-,.,se, is too much on the high side. Business r~s such is, subjoct to so m2,,11y v:ll'iabl0s and vicissi tudcs, such that it is iT.possible to put an eY.act fi~ure 0£ an income for a particular pcriodo Thus I find that a 012.im of Shso60,000/= as income per day, as un ·e.::im.-3'g9ri:'.tion 2,,t besto · D-ven 'that customer from ToRoMo Bukoba micht not h2vo eventually. ~2.kori on ·that .firm for various ottier God-send rc,3sonso In t;fl)G of C8.8CS what the court docs'J is to estimate a reasonable 2L1ount of what it considers to be darnu.ges for loss of business and unlawful inte~fe~ence in ones business. There is no ha.rd and fixed rule for that. In.thG case at hand, considering that the nork~hop wris closed for sevon dc.ys only, I assess the dam:,,g·es payable at Shso20,000/=o In the event 9 I enter judgment for the plabtiff in the sum of ShsD20 1 000/= pius costs and intercsto · Order accordinglyo JUDGE