19950801 TZHC Dar es Salaam

t Ii.::- Till E:i:GH 001.:':;.T OF TJJ!Z.lliil. --~1.!1,._ -~--~-- Dl'iR ~-:j SJ.J,AfJ,I. ~ NAT.AL FIDill,IS ••oocoo••···········APPELL.ll.1TT ~t.1lR'3US S'r[,.+,i•+-'t Ul'filJ.l.LJ r::r,..,l·n·1·T• .a. .u. '"'·· e ·~· O . e • • e ••.•• f •.••• f. t. ,.,.,,.t:!"nQiT''l"l'\'l"lllitm •4'-~ 1 :.l, JJ..Ual,~·.a.· ' ' The cr2pell2:.ts i~1 t~i8 ~a:Je a:L-e CUJ.\r:AS T.AllZAlllA and NAT.AL FDSLISI . . who is a;n enq;lo3,ee of t::: :'..st :::.:ppcllr.; .t. lloth appellants are aggrie:Ved 'b:, the de6ision of tb.e tria:.. ~.1agistr:~.te wt.crein on 3.2.94 an '3:q>arte jud@nen~,. ~-- wae. ~ntei~ed ~ s t them in favom.• ,yf t:.'J respondent one S'l'ut·T.Mtr MKWAW'~ ._.··: !_ .. , .. who had his vehicle kn~ck,a. do-vm. ry -1_:· , .~11d appellant whilst drlviz2g ~he ·. · vehicle belonging to t:~e :ct i:-:,:pel:1.c :~-- . ·.:ha t:i.•i[>.J. n&e:l,stro.te WS.t'decf the · respondent: ~ S:1s 550, ::;oc as costfl t'.; ::3;_,. ,ir to l'l!s vohicl.o - Oom_pei1st>.t:.vn fo:- los.J c: "i.SC to t::e tune of shs. 81 040,000. '· The facts of this C.'.l.Se 'i)1•ie.'.'ly stat.::d. are that the plaintiff now· respondent. filed a. sUit :."''"''iri.st tllo 1.-,.:·e11.d.:·.:1ts not-i a"..i!J?ellants ola.1.mi.nB- . 'for shs 550,000 as cost.:; of rc?:rl:i: t,..l :u~ C.::-maged vehicle ana· sti.s.81 6-40,000 -· being loss of use when t:1e res:,_,o:1d$1ts vehicle stu:"ed idle after the aQoident.~' It is hot

in dispute that the respondU1"1ts vehicle 't-tas knocked down by the -----~~ --~d .qppellant on 1.1.9~. Liability. wa c-.1mitte4 but~ ~he- ~ellant~- . ~.. ,.. ,•_·_:·::j-: did not respond- to the '!:'eS!)o11d~:~t' s ~lai . , the latter decided to take- ~-- ·:~~ . matter to oowt, The ocse was a.s~igned : )l' mention on 16.,1.2, 93 and the 8',mllllOns for disposal of s'Uit was se:t". ud on 'the appellants,· the latter '- · .. ·. w~-:~~,\~ " ' · refused to be served. The trial ma.gistl•B[;e then allotred the· respondent · .. ·. ' ¥> file an o.ffida.v:i.t for ~erle proof c:tlt'. subsequently jt~aht wa.s ant~ J ._ i,nfavour of: the respon~.'3nt 8.13· praye'1., It . ,:.~~ ,bo pertinant to mention hen . · . that as the appellan-ts ~ refused to be ,1c~rcd 011 14-.12.931 tbe subseq~t events took place wi tho.ut their bei11g ::waxe.. . t:.1c t.-i;pellants has filed f'ol+t' Mt•, ICap~'s8, leruned QQunsel for grouncis- .._,,.. ot aPll-eal ao"'Oinst the j\1.Q.@llent of tl:..) trial i.:<l.gl.strate. There. .~e a.. tha.t the lea.med trial r.i~ctstr::-.te erred tor failing to write - a j'tldgnent. b. in the alt81'Stat1ve to ( a) . :l.bo:v-e en-ed. 11aJ.~~ magistr~tr t~:--:~ in law encl. in ta.at :i.n aw.u-d.11t'g the _:/espondent the --_-__ :; ~ · .A · · --··. sum ~ • • 5,0,000 as costs cf ~Ga:b! . ·-" . · ·.~::-:-~ .o. that the a.wu4 of·c.caflfGnl~~• ~~ SUlil o't ~ . 81 640,~_- . <,'·~, to

the respon4c).t. ::-0.r ioss of Us& ct tho l'll()tor vahiclp WSS'' .· ': ~.:'· ;('.'· ,a,aasona~ . d wu not aupportect by eviden,;,e. .. ·: :--: . i. ·, .- . ·.;-• ;)tifia ----· - 2 - a.. that the d.amace caused to the respondents vehicle i.e. ren.r left gate dented, left gate window glass broken and J."'ear bu.nr2oi~ bent co1.·2.d not prevent ·the respondents vehicle c~om operctions no:': 8ouJ.d it, in tho ordinary oourse of 1i1.:1Sine::::::; t·cJ.ce ten :r.:,1:tl1s to repair. - the.i t!lo lem:-nec.\ ·.c>.e;istr~to failed to take into account the p::-~_ncip~ 3 of. :.:ii;igatio11 of damaces. In his su.buission M!·., I:c-:,.)ingu 1mi:1·;; on to oloborato on the B,'t'O'l..'!lld.s •. ~.Kapinga lea.mod counsel attacJ.:::)d the"j-...:.c:.{;nent" of ~he trial nw.gist:tta.te in that· it ,ras not aJ?J.'10J?e:- .:;·:..:c.c,-:.:::-nt . .:.n required by Order 20 l"'llles 3 and 4 of the CFC 1966. The juc~.@:ler.t of the trie.l :·:1a{;l.strate read,. uo:;.xlei~, 'C'pon filir.g ·:::1e tl.'l..rpm-.te affidavit;· ·j~t- is entered i.nfavou.r of :plainti:t;':f as pr~e'1." Mr Kapinf:,'a Sll1Jmitted b::)fO:i:'O t)1i's coi..u--t J,;ho.t what was 'l·,ntten by th9 triol magistrate wus not a p;rcper judgment•• C1~1a,t Order. 20 llules 3 & 4 make·s it mandatory tht',i; a. jud~ont ::iust be -;ci tt 0~" and s:,.ru.1 contain "a. oonoise Statement of the oaso, t::o :points j~~i- dc,r>J~.'m:G~d:i.on, t:10

doois_ion thoreon and the reasons for such decision. rr · Tl ~d -~>::, t:.~io,1 uacistrate failed to write a, j~non:~ a..'l'ld tho::-of'o:re even ·:::- :'~ i.1.:. ·.1'c,'.) ~l:.r.t followed oould not agree trith tho judgment as t:;,.:;:.·::i was none... ..:.o.,·1 ,3;'_::-::0 ·c:.:.?ro is· no ~ent then. there c,ould bo no dco:..•o·:,. M:i.'eKapi..11ca ·.:::·_;(,,:. -tJ.:o 001.1,j.•i; to allow· the appeal on this{;l:'01.u'ld. lritl: alone costs • . iii thotrt J.)X0jlid.1CO to tl~o fo~cgoj_:,g, sliould the Court hold that there. is an appcala,l)lo judgme!lt and docroe, ;r.r,.K2-pi:1ga. subnitted that there was no _plioof that the roSJ?on·a.cnt o:q,oridoci. the ;f.1211 ·of shs. 550,000 on repairs. There. was no receipt tcmdorod by the r(;spond,;3!.li li.eoord.inc; to Mr,K~inga, the trial ~~stra.te should have deducted tho ._su;f of shs 18o1 Q0_0 as t ~ was no proof of panel boating and spr~e• :~ tho 'tii1a of shs 1llo1 ooo/•• This sum ought to have been deducted fi'om the tctal sum ola.imod. . ··• .. On the. issue of the·· loss·: ot uso Mt' Ka.pinga. loamed. oounsol is oliallahgl.ng the figure ot shs 81 6401000 as· boin4 ,itl.'eaiiriio. That the ·da.te of the repair to tho· Vehicle is hot kl,.~ al.thoU€3l, ZW1eXture 'C' ( an invoice of Sanborn ll,gtneering Serives Limited) wo'Uid. ii'Uggest that the • repairs were probably done ·on 15.7.93 some i94 c.ta_y., after tho accident. Mr

Ka.pinea was of the view' that .the time sre: -:; to repe.1.r the vehicle was U111'easonably long . eonsidoring the natUT(I of tho damQ6o ' . to the vehiole Acoordil1g to lb:-_ Kai.)inga a reasona.bio i,:i•iod w ·.lld not oxoeod two weaks. Furthermore it was Mr Kapiriga.':!1._contention tlu:t tho roepondcnt's vehicle could not havo ~Jeon operational for all the• 28') days and mado 40 trips · daily without intcZ"U)?tion. 'l'his.,is 11ot fee.aibJ.o in prc.otioe o.nd the triaJ. magistrc;to did not talte that into aocoun1• That it was necossaxy for the res-.Qondcnt to s'4'po:rt his ()laim ot loss ot uso by produoiaJ. some eVidence pf op orations prior to the accident so. as to ind.ioato tl?,o trend of hie inoomo from operations ot the vehicle. 3 Thct- t~10 rn,02c"'_ ol o:iso 81 64C-1:,11CCO wo.s -~oculativo tu.ld not supported by ovidcnco, vre,uod n.r KD..r,incu foz, -t · o o.ppollant~,. In vildition, Mr Kapinga subnittcd that go:i.nc- b:- t:.o vo:~iol·i :.'.::.spcot_i{:>n Ilopo:rt anno::rhUl'o · '.A' to tho affidavit riot ·Do provontod. :f'rou bci:~,.; opcrationol or toke 10 aonths to repair. Tlw tlor.12co do::::cri bocl in tho :::dd inspoc~ion rcpoivt road as f'ollowsa;.. ~tor o.cciC:ont ":1oat lii't en.to dcDtod Lift gato ,-~cl-ow glass broken Ilo:1t bur.1po~ ~ont" Finally !Ir Kapincn subnittod· thp,"L: tho Itcspond.on:t had allogaJ. d,uty to mitigate tho less after tho

l),(:)ia.ont. That· if: th.o vohiol~ lfa.s d.az:lagod on 1. 1.93, tllO rcsponc"'..cnts sho1-i:.d ~ave t:akon imcodiato ·etO;?s 1fo ropair his vehicle an.cl rc,pa5.r it within t,-To reeks at tho most Md. riot 10 months., ..\rnod uH-i1 all tl-:.if'?, lon.rncd. co~:r,sol for tho aa,po;tlants asked the court to c;. low tho 1.J:: ,.5nJ. ~r.:.. th cos-b. 1.ppo~lnc for tb :; rospo~1doni- • ill~ ~ ·:..ttaitiaa fj_'l()m IJ:a.nzania. LoG8,1 C&r.Dorc.-t:i.,,~. _.....-. · ,.J!, i·.(_· ·;Jc ·u.o-un"tod. 1-..s to the iss·c·,c cf i;:_,J fo;r.n~'.iL u'.:· c1 :--:)c:;:- ,j",-r::;;i:1ont oounscl submitted that tho lrn-r docs r:ot cti::n.u.o/c c. ::_):~--•-'-a':~.:...:..~ io:;~r.,.J.t of how a judgraont should look lilco a.i.lcl. tho.i- y;o _ c. :::::. don has ->V ') . ~-- ~1 ::·o·:orscd simply bocau.se tho judgment is i-oo Dho1:t. CL:.o rospon··,. rr .. !.1ds cited tho oaso at Transport Feu.ipngnt ,Liq:j.j;cd_Y.&_ D0·,--r_w_!.. VBI:11~1_~-§. ( Da:r !LS S~p.a.r;_i.Ji;.Kh ~ Rogistoy) Civil Caso :Do_. 210 of 1989 by R1..1.'lc~r.o. JC,s ho thon was)j that tho procedure was not fa'Ul tod by tho Cocyt of ~:..ppoa1 0 On tho issv.o of costs of rc1,cir ~ o tho vehicle, counsel submitted that- tho rolovo.nt doCUP01:t D.Yll'lo:~turo C 1 ·.::,s produced before tho court. This was not contradicted by tho ~pcl:i-ii;.:.-~s/doi~nd,a.nts. That tho rospondont could not produce roocipt since tho mo11io::i woro yet

to bo paid. On tllc ocr.Il_)onsntion for loss o:f uso eounsol to~ tho respondent subIJittod that there w.::.s ~ - (?Vi.donoo mfr>,ila.blo botoro tho tl'ial. magistrate. And since tho 2i'"Zidav:i.t was not opon ror c~1a1lcngo tho tri"-1 IUD.8:i..strate was not in or.ro:r. I-:; wo.s tho coUl'l.Gols contcn~i on tho.t tho claim ira.s sufficicmtly proved.. 1.a to tho duty to mitigate loss, c.ounsol for rospond.onts while c111coding tho,t tho respondent has a. duty i:.i. ~.. a1-rto mitigo.to loss was of tho tpin:103:_l that i·l; was tho appellants uho p:::cv·cr· jod tho l."OSJ?OlldOllts from so doillg by thcu• refusal to sign tho ins1..U'a.nc•J, ·forr.is, ~Ao t1-J?l)olla.nts. cannot be hoard now to rely an that eq\d.ta.blo d.oc'f;:oi:10. .l.J.l in all tho respondents e.rc ·~tt~ng ¥hat "tho appoal bo dismissed with costs for la.ck of substa.noQ• .-.. I havo ·1aak t:j.no to study tho rocar", of t~~ caso. 'lb.o revelations aro that tllo W.,?].)o~ l~.nts thon dof 011.da.?+ts wo~ sorvod with. summons to appear for the mention ( and !}Ot hoaring) !;l,l'l ·16/12/93, '. t.'b,o · a.ppolla.nts refused to a.cknowlodgo sorvico of sur:1rlans aPd tho ~ t w~ Qntitlod "to ontor juc~@t for tho plcdntiff D - 4 - Iloi:,eve1·, : -~l1irJ.c t:1et:riru mac;istra.te ought to have been guided "oy thep:rocedm.•e 1..mclor 09 R6 ( 1 )( a) ii ( B) which readss- 6( 1) w:1e:r-e tlie plaintiff appears and. the

de:f'end,ant doe~ not aa_)peaJ.• when the si...i t is called· for heal'ing then \ . ( a) ( i j Ct f) • 0 . D. 0 0 t 0 • e •••• ( ii') ::::::r the ~.vi t is.before any com..t; other then the ..... ( 1.':.) ••• I ,f " • e e •• Q ~ 0 0 •• ,' :D;' t:.'£ st.'l,;.·.1'.'.'.ons issued ~ras a. ~ n s to appear l?i1d it is :P..-<>\'ed ·thtt.°' the sun1mons was duly :.1er/t!"., t~1e ~ m~, enter jud[J!1ent for the :;>la.itr. ifi, In _the insta;;.1t case it .-~::- evia.ent t:1e court proceeded und~•. o D Il. 14( 2) ( b),; The :relevant p:1.•oviso :r-:: o,C,,.:: 1It ( 1), ~. ~ ~ ~ ~- •• (' ••••••• " •••.•• ,.. •·. 0 fl • (2) In 2c:1:i case in :rhia11 .:, d<!fendant wl10 ie Nquired und.ex sl: . .:.:'U.!..e ( 2) of 1·lll" ( i) to presetit his 'lr.t'itten stateme.'11t of c'efence failf . ilo d? so vri tllin the p¢.od §J2_eci.fJed i·n ·t; ~e sur.rn:ons ( ·.mdei· li vi~:J ~e) the Cow-t ina.y - / \ \•a;•.•;, Cit. 0 0 0 . e •• ",;J II DC• t (b) in axiy otha:c' c:·;;;o, 'upon applica.ttQn in writing by the plaintiff_, /i.;: u ·c1.ay for ~~a;rte ·proof and rn~, p:ronow1ce j·, -. ~ ~ :mt in f rorour of the J?laintiff. upon such proa.:' . : ~"is claiim. n· ·· · I say the t:rial 1·Jr,:-;is•:;;:-,:tc 1rns · in e1"!'.)! · o act 'Lil1c1.er this pJ."Ovision because in the ffrst instonc0 the svrDnons bs:1.e:. co tte defend.D;1ts n01-r appellants did not 1'0q_ui1·e him to :,_;1·esent their ,-_e/cnce witl:.in a

pEWiod stated. '11he summons isst~0a. to the 8J?pella11ts reo_ui:i.•ocl them i;o appea.1.• in oom.•·t wi tho,xl; :f'a.il and p1•od1.1ce docw:;.ents they :!.ntendei to rely on. Seoond).y1 the plaintiff did not formerly apply to court foi· e=..'1i2J.·te proof' in -hems qt O 8 R 14(2)(b) above oited. .. I would tl1eref'ore ~"Tee with '.!r Ka.p~~ lear11ed ooui1s.:?l. for the appellants thc:t the procedure a.d.optec~ by the trial m~tra~B ,. · -· UdJegular. Coming 1101r to the 1st gI.90tmd of appeal- the judglllent. llules 4 a:-.-.cl 5 of O 20 of the CPC. 1966 provide ;hq.t ·a. ~.1,q GhQl.lld o;)Uta.:i.n a cone .se • ' i" statement of the case, thij ;points f0%!r de~1.1t'1ll*~ Jw 4,eoisio."'_ ~.,_· · and the reason for Sl..lch decision. Tb.ere is however no specific tol,na'\· W:, l1ow a. judGraent. should. look like• It is sttl'fici~nt if it is t~-.Od t9 ~~ the ~emonts s~;;i,tr,c· he~einabovc. And the oonten1:s ~ ea.Ql.1 ~<k1;, 19'0Uld ·~ ~ whole ":..c::;ie.ncl Qn each i11dividual case. •../5- -.-.....____ - 5 - '!:n1at :..r-~1pened in tlce c2-se/appeal before me is that aftor the plaintiff :,.2..d :::':..lee:. an a.ffid.:-,vi t ?ox- ex pa.rte proof )?Ui:St\...'\nt to an order of tl1e t:rid L18,Gist:;:.-ate~ tl < latter reoorded ithe Ol'd~ that rrcr:::,011 filinc the CXJH..l'~ue c.J:fidn.vit, judement is entered in favou.r of t~1e plaintiff c-,s l)I'~-ed sga.." In my hvn~jle v:.:;,~

t~1e tria.J r::·.c-~-str::-,te strayed into n.n 01.--ror when he entered jude;-r,1ont ::c::.· t!:c :9lc.:.nt.: ._,_~ ~~:;_1 :·. m.\t evo.luatL'lg the c,o:nte:nts of the affida.vii, in c,s :2 :.2 :-..s p:.• -:iof · o=- C:c.1uo-.;es o:;.• c~ aim m.\S ooncernea.. A:ffidtwits like ::-r.:, at:.. ,~:.- :pioc<o c ':' c·.-:.c.onc0 ms to bo a11n;iysod. a.nd· evaluated even where it is :?!ot 'uoing c::al lo::ceda One does not mor~:ty file an ~fidavi t a..1c:i. c:::J)0ct tho tri::-1 com.."li ·bo c.ct -. on it whole stile without some .. soru:ting. The so::.·uting vf the affidtwi t is mol'O so in suoh oo.ses as the appeaJ. bof01.~0 i~:c 1rh0rc damages :::uld o-:i: oonlpei1sa.,t!on ono boing. olaimed. Paragraph 9 o:r: ,:;ll.e plc,:i.nti.ff's affidav:i:ii stc,toss';.. 9"Tho.,t shi.1:;_i11gs fi'V( ht¥,lcb'.'ca., and fifty 1'housa.nd& was reqUired ' . . i;o rope.:·_;:- t:1e- vchic te as s'101-rn on a.n inVoioe 'by Sanbern . Ei13i.neoi•i:1.g Services Limited annexod her~o .al\d. marked C"• · The :tmmodintc quor:ition that oomes to my td.nd i~: was this fiBu:t'e( shs~ 550,000) iihe o,0tua.J. sun that the plid.nti:ff •paid for tho :ttepa.u"? ~~ there a receipt issued? The :•cspondcnt h_1,vc d2.:tcd t_hat · ;i "tho :t'0Spondcnt could net :.·::-df'.uco 0. i,ccetpt booause the monioc ·.~ere yet to bo 1•c· ~-.• 11 That being tho CC1S0 tho _g,wc,tua.1 repm_~ 0:::::1:,:~G could.not be the sum of shs.

.5~0, 000/=. C:I • ' . • • . ; ~,. i:>iznil~ly i'o:::- tho co~cnsatio:.1 :fi: -~-·o of sh::;, _0,.640,000 .,.. there was no evidenoo to sl:mr hoi~ this figu::.·::: h31l lJcon D..tTive4 e..t, I:i. was tho duty of the triDJ. mnur;j_:Jti,2.:to t·o aJ.1:-uysc tho cvidenco botoro hiDl ond oome to his • • • •! . -: • • own cona.usion. By mc:.·oly adoptina the filed ai"tida.Vit . is .. 1lO't proof in SUch 'a case~ m1£:,t I 1rish to cm;phasizc is tli.t.t whothor 1t is a lone judgmontor a, short one;. oc.oh caso have to .examined '011 its OW%\ ;f i,,ots. And facts of each uill. d:iot.;,,;bc ·wlfot typ'o O'l judgment s 1J.~ll emanC?to ;her~m, In J18.SOS :fo-:c O.,"'q_)Ollt9 ~roof by a.ffid.aVit ·tM .trial m~straiio halJ a duty to examine tho filod affidaVit and satisfy lurnself"whoibo~ t:lo allogod claim has boon J?l"'OVOd b:/ the affida:vit ~- Qthc:L--i.r.i.sc. , '\ , ' I Tb.a,t boinc tho position. I am inolincd. to allou '\ho .a.ppoqJ. and order that tho oaso be heard botoro another· riia8:tstra.to . tri th monda10 . to admit further ovidoncc. And to tho O.Xl~t "hie ~:poal is olloirod. witµ costs. ,J\l'.,t J~ \.\) u \(.Jt. ~ , A. o. m l ~ ~ 1/a/95 ••••/6-:- . Delivered before . ·' .1 Mr. K api11ga. - TJ.10 a.motu--,; ::,f' money :in tho ~:,pollants. {· )L~ lj t:,l) L ~ \A- C fa· .. ·BU:BllfZII ' Ge I. /tf)) GE. 1/P/95. .' I