20011120 TZHC Mwanza

20011120 TZHC Mwanza

The appellant, as the exclusive supplier of electricity, owed a statutory duty to properly install, inspect, and maintain the electric meter at the respondent's premises. The appellant failed to provide evidence of compliance with these duties or to rebut the respondent's evidence that the fire was caused by a defective meter. The burden of proof shifted to the appellant, who failed to discharge it. The respondent proved her case on the balance of probabilities, and the damages awarded were reasonable and supported by evidence.

Citation
20011120 TZHC Mwanza
Parties
Appellant: TANESCO Limited; Respondent: Mary Robert
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
20 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From District Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Statutory Obligations, Damages, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Tort Law Statutory Duty Contract Law Negligence Duty of Care Statutory Obligations Damages Burden of Proof

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TANESCO Limited

Appellant

Mary Robert

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant owed a duty of care to the respondent
  2. 2 Whether the appellant breached that duty by negligent installation and maintenance of the electric meter
  3. 3 Whether the breach caused the fire and resulting damages

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant, as the exclusive supplier of electricity, owed a statutory duty to properly install, inspect, and maintain the electric meter at the respondent's premises. The appellant failed to provide evidence of compliance with these duties or to rebut the respondent's evidence that the fire was caused by a defective meter. The burden of proof shifted to the appellant, who failed to discharge it. The respondent proved her case on the balance of probabilities, and the damages awarded were reasonable and supported by evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment and decree of the District Court affirmed
  • Appellant to pay special damages of TShs. 7,529,660/-