19891227 TZHC Tabora

IN TIE EIGI:I COURT OF T.ill'TZ,.tlmi. :-,_T T..'.:..J30l:1.L (He) crvn.. APP:ll..'.L NO. 15 OF 1986 (FR0r1 S::IINY/,.NG.\ Rl:1 1 s COURT CIVIL CJ:.STIJ NO. 9/86) 'ilorsus R.,t;_Y}iOND JOSlill?H KIM!:.RO •••••• ' • .insPOND:::DNT i JUDO.IDMENT CHIPETA 2 J .. In S~rzy-anga Resident No.gistrD,to' s Court, tb.o appellant, &mona Nur.1au, ui1soo-:-·'.)oc;fully su..od tho respondent, R.ytlond Joseph Kir.m.ro, for rosctlssion of a_,cc,-rt:ra.ct ontored into botwoon tho parties. . It WM common gr-oui'ld tl:nt in April, 1985~ in a. vorbal cliscission, tho . :ros:;_"','):1.Clcnt 9/fforo/'~u:y tto suit promises bolonging to tho f-9pollr..nt nncl w'.J.ic:. t:.-:, ro;3J?ondont was ro.ntins- end. using it for rosidonti.o.1.- ~ a s ~o::J~o .. Tho a.ppollcnt aq_e_optod tho offer," and so on 10th" May, 1985, tho parties cioctitoci..an o.grconont boforo a prir:m.ry court r,mgistra.tc at Shieyo.nga Urgan Pri1:12.:;.'.Y Court. B"J tlw,t agrocnont, tb.o ·appellant was .to sale his houso (t:!lo suit pr:Jnisos) to tho rospondont for s:1S. 180,000/=. Tho cr,lo prj_c,) was to bo paid in six instnlmonts, .that is, t,c;ta; t:-:..o rospoYJdont 1rv.s to pc.y Shs. 30,000/'(:', after ovary ·tiroo months till 30th Docorilbor, 1989 whon t2J le.st insta.lmont wr-.s to bo puicl. ancl tho_ house ,ms tb.on to bo transferred to. tho rosponlont. The ~'ir:::n:; inst,.::,L..,...:::t of Shs. 40,000/.- ·wo.s p:.'.id on

tho coritro.ctut,J.· clG.to~ Th·J soe:c·:~.c. :instnlIJont of Shs. 30,000/= was to bo paict on 30th August, 1985, tr.c t:.irc."l. on 30th Dooombor, 1985; tho fourth on 30~h .i"..pril, 1986 1 tho fifth on 30t2::. Jul::,', 1985 1 and the last on 30th Novomber, 1986. I-i:, wns "t.i'lo appollc::.nt•s· ovid.ence tl:..at on 25th April, 1 ~ ~ b n t · · · ·. hin · - ........~. approached him ancl to1cyt110.t l.,e ( tho responclent) m,,s fnoing financial c.:n:.". dornGtic problems and so it was not possible for hin to pey tho fou:tth inst;.:;.lmmt on 30th .\pril, 1986 • .t..c·cording to tllo appellant, tho rosponclo: -~ ash.,d for an extension of .tine, and tho appollnnt then told tho rospol)(lor:.t that since tho respondent l:w,cl no r:io110y, t1ioro ,ms no problon, On 20th. rnc:w, ·. filed . 1986: tho appollan-ytlris suit<tlo.irlingroso~sion of the contra.ct on uo ground. tb.q,t t.1.:~ respond.::mt ·h::i!. boon in broo.ch·-of--~ torr.is o_f tho cont:ract by failing to po.y tho fourth-ins-ta.J.oont 1 ' "-'\ ' . In his dofenco, tl:o· rosponcl.ont saic.l thn.t following_ ·th:) oxooution of t:'"o . . -~ agreoBont bo two on t110 p~tios' 'he j_)nid tho first ins talcient \ o·f"'-Sha, 40~000/= . . on t...1.0 contractual dt1to encl tho ,second of Shs. 30 7000/= ~fa.a paid I . I on 30-tl: ,l-..uf,"..'r:t, -- 1985. Tho roapondont wont·on to s2,y thnt h9 ,os su:p:posod:fo pn.y tho

tll:J.rcl inst.2J.nont on 30th Doco□bor, 1985, but on t:.1D,t clato ho' pcid Shs, 15,400/= ,. \ and. Shs~ 14,600/= was to be paid. on 30th Ja...'1.uery, 1986, Howovor, t:'.:at sur.1 ·wc.s paic'. on 10th Fobru,,;cy, 1986,· / / \~,, ). \ .... -- I \ '\ j )/ / '"', '-. '. / 2 ... Tho rospoi1ckmt tostifioc'1.. furtl:...or/}1\'2,15t :~i:iril, 1986, ·ho travollod to :M.agt1,nz(, whore tho appollp,nt rosiclcs 0,ncl tol:J. t!1e a:ppolla.nt t:'..lo. t ho ( tho rospoi;;~~::::::.-'c) wns facing financial problor:is, anc1 so ho roqu.0stoc1 oxtonsion of tine to p~r t~-,_o fourth ins talnont o Ho told. t).-:o c-4:ppoL :mt t;.-~a, t ho ·would.. po.,y tho fourth encl :fif-t~~- -., -~:..;•,· i;18talr.1onts·, that. is Shs·o 60,000/= on 30th July, 198~-• Tho appellant agroocl_, r:,n::~ so -tho rosponclont wont to tho rn1cistra to bo:foro whoo they oxocutod -~:.. .o a,gj_'oooont arid told hio 2.bout t:.10 c.groor:iont as to extension of tine. So llo wn.s surprisocl to loo.rn tl1G. t tLo r,,ppollrmt :1m filo;i_ a, sv.i t for rescission of t::,o co11tracto Tb.o rosponclont concluc1o0.. by .seyin3 t!12.,t :::.o 1"ms ro2.ily to pay tho ronaining suno On tho •ovidonco before l1in, tho lon.r.nocl tri'al rosic\ont oagistrato found a.s a fact that tho rosponclcnt hci. pe,id. L, substantial po.rt of tho contractun.l suB, that ti::.o partio·s bn.ct, o..g:roocl to oxtonl tho tirao to 3Otl1 July, 1986 when

tb.o fourth ano.. fifth instaL1011ts' would.bo·.. paiC-:. 9 anc1 tl.-.:.ct tl10 fo.iluro to pc.jr c,:1 instaJ.Dont on t:J.o duo de.to wcs not a con1i tion procodont for, if it he.cl boo:1, tho parties _would ooarly he.vo so sti:ptllatoc.l ii1 tha contract-• . Du:r:Jng _tho hoari1,s of . this appeal, Mr. Kahangwa, learned counsel for t.~w ap:po2.J.c.nt, relying· on t:io EngliG~1.·cn.so of:Morcy Stool & Iron Co,. Vo lifu;2:lor (18'84) 9 App. c. 434, subnittoC. tmt tho rosppnc:ont's failuro to pay tto instalaont. of 30th 1:..pril 9 1986 wow..tod to a broacl:l of a flmcla.r:iorital tern w:-..tch · 110nt to i:h.o root of tl10 contract. Hr. Kwil-d.ur:1, loarnocl counsel for tho roaponclcnt, · · · ·· · not,· · S".:J.;,.:.' :.:_,i_ :_ t: ..at fo,iluro to p2,y 2,n instalment was/ a breech of_ a funo..ar:1ontd t:..r:.1 V:.0,t coulcl frustrn.to a contr2.ct or ;.,d-co its porrorno.nco inpossiblo, 2,:nrl so tl.10 appollo..nt. cmmot ro·scind. it. Tho Morey Stool & Iron case le.id down c:1. gonoral principle~ and that principle, in is to be _fo_uncytho worcls of Lorcl. 312.ckburn. Ho sto.tod, 11t pago 443: "Whore· thoro is e, contrn.ct in which thoro arc two partios railuro to porforo ono ?~rt of it goos to tho. root of tho contrac_t 9 goos to t:,.o founda-Ho:ri of tho whol~, it is a good dof~:mco to say, ."I ai.1 not 5oing on to porf orn Ti'(! part of it vib.on ,.tl1e. t wh:j,cb. is t)::.o

root of· t~o who lo .and. tho oubs te,nticJ. ' t considora.tion for cy·por£ornanco :is dofontod by your ·_nirc.onducte Tho cour~ thor9 c.lso stc.tod that tl:i.J bran.ch of ono stipulation docs not moo <1sclrily. C-?.rry with it ovan an implicc{tion of tm intpntion to ropud.ia, to -;:.ho ·,Hul.:i .contrc.ct~ A n::>ro :omightonirig statcnont on this point is to bo found in CBITI1Y ON CO:N1IRJ.CTS., Tb.ore it is stated.~ o.t )Q(.;:::: ·:245.0· 3 .'~~f there is r. distinct refusal by om party to bo bound by tho contrc.ct in futuro 7 tho otlJ.or party may treat tho contract as ~t an end. Short of 1 rofusal, th:) principlo is to accertain whetho!: tho action of tho iiroo.kor is sucli as to enti tlo tb. o otl.lor part7 to conclude that tho brcakor !e lon;<j)r int.ands to bo bound by its provisions• For t.'.is :n:;_:.~::·::is1.• t: _s; f::,,iluro to ::;iorforn oust defeat tho w:1010 object of tho contract so as to ar.iount to a cor:1plo to ro:m:Uc, tfon by fao party in dofaul t of his oblig2.tions under it. 11 '!ho loa:rnod autl::.or go,Js om "It is tho i::oro difficult, howcvor, to infer t:.et a broach roprosonts conploto ro~ud.iation of a contract t:::.o furtl:or tho pc..rtios have procooded. wi tl1 t~:..0 porfor1:12.nco of it. 11 . (~phasi~"'"supplied). In .}:b.O present case 9 at ono stagu, an instnloont was dela;red by nor:J t:..r1n a nontb. 9 anc. noi thor party coL1.plainocl.

1'.. fow clays boforo tllo fourth instcluont was clue, t 1.,.e pmtios, as founcl by tLo trial court, arit rig:i:tly so in oy vi:)w, agroocl that faoro bo an extension of tiuo so thn.t botl1 -~10 fourt:1 and fiftl: instalments be paicl on tho cl.ate t'.:~o fifth instalnont foll duo~ that is, on 30tl: July, 1986. Clearly, thoroforo f it cc.m10 t, in reason, bo said that tho respondent's failure_. to po,y t::,.J f-=.rt,1..r"c'.1 i;:):3t:'..li:1ont in tine nnountoc1 t7a distinct rofusal by tho rosponclont to be bounc. 1)3T t110 contract in future. On th~ contra.ry, it was an expression t:v: t t: . ~ :ci:-iJ.~tios still consic~oroc: t~orasol vcs bound by t!:..oir contract. Thon thoro is tl:o s ta/30 to wl:;.icb. tb.0 rosponclcnt had procoodod wit::. t~~o porforraanco of tho contract on his po.rt: ho had paid r:ioro tan !lalf of -~-_:., contractual sum:i and roasorobly wi t::..in tho agreocl periods, ~ stn. toa. ir:. J...NSOlPS L:,.W OF CONTRL.CT, at pagD 346: "T'..10 best illustrations of divisiblo prooisos n.re to bo founcl in contracts to recoivo ancl pay for goods by instalnonts. W~.1oro those aro · numerous, an1 extond ovor a lon3 tine, a default ·either of deli vory or pa.ynont doos not nocossa.rily discharge tho contract ••• 11 ...,; 4 _On tho bo.sis of tho forogoing principlos 9 t'.20 conluct of tho l)artios, ,.. ~hoir rospoctivo merits, an:l all tho circurnstancos of tho

cas'o 9 I an q_uito ... cloar in ~.ni.ncl tho. t the failure b;,· tho rospondont to pay tho fourt;.1. . i11Sto.lnont on tl:;.o duo dato (lid. not consti tuto a. fun:lar:iontal. torn w:.1io:: wont to tho root of t!:-o c0ntr2,ct so as to justifJ roscission· of tho ···contract botwoon tho parties e For thoso roasons 9 tU.s appoal fails ant so is l:oroby dismissoc1o JUDGillo Juclgmont doli vorocl at Tabora in tlio absonco of t:10 parties tl:..i s _21-;tl:i.· d~Yt of Do conbor,. 1989 • l<t·~.,- ., " ·,) •.?>~, f: .•• f ... J •'" f ) , . , .•,. .,· JU