N

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OFT ANZANIA AT MW ANZA (CORAM: MAKAME, J.A, LUBUV A, J.A, And J.A) CIVIL APPEAL NO.26 OF 2000 BETWEEN TANZANIA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED ............... APPELLANT AND I TIMBER ENTERPRISES LIMITED ................. ; ... RESPONDENT (Appeal from the judgement of the High Court of Tanzania at Tabora) (Masanche, J.) Dated the 14 th day of September, 1999 in High Court Civil Case No.lof 1993 JUDGEMENT OF THE HIGH COURT From the aforementioned case it was an appeal from the decision of the High Court in Civil case No lof 1993. In this case the respondent (Timber Enterprises Limited) was ,nvarded 12 million shillings damages for the loss of earnings against the appellant (Tanzania Electricity Supply Company Limited). In the aforesaid case the respondent who was a dully registered company which owned a furniture factory in Tabora. On 8.7.1988 the respondent applied to be supplied with electricity at the factory by the appellant. But it was until 12.11.1989 that the respondent was supplied with electricity and it was done after the intervention of Regional Commissioner and the appellant head office in Dar es Salaam. Therefore due to the delay supply of electricity the respondent file a suit in the High Court against the appellant claiming 22,680,682 for loss of earnings for the period between 1989 and 1999. Therefore the learned judge awarded the respondent 12 million 5 ' . for the loss he incurred. Thereafter the appellant was aggrieved with the decision made; hence the appeal was preferred before the Court of Appeal at Mwanza. In the appeal the appellant (Tanzania Electricity Supply Company Limited) was presented by Learned Counsel Mr.Mwatembe, while on the respondent side was presented by Learned Counsel Mr. Mesa Kweikwima. In this appeal the Learned Counsel Mr. Mutembe for the appellant filed his three grounds for appel; 1. That the Learned judge erred the law by awarding the respondent damages after having found that. 2. The learned judge erred the law by awarding damages without specifying the nature of the said damages. 3. That the learned judge erred in law by arriving at the decision that the appellant was in breach of contract. However the learned counsel Mr. K wikima from the respondent side consented to the ground that there were no breach of contract due to the fact that the contract did not stipulate any conditions. Therefore the court of appeal was of the view that the 12 million awarded to the respondent was wrongful awarded as to the reasons presented by the appellant side, therefore the appeal was allowed with costs, and the decision and decree of the High Court was set aside. 6