20020422 TZCA Dar es Salaam

YJ:RYJ\ a..~HF~I?AL ~Ui!~;n;s rnl:'ORT AND BXPOHT COJv'i:PJ,NY LTD. APPELLANT JI.ND· • PJ~PONDENT (Appeal from the decision of tha High Com-t of 'l'a.nzania at D~tr cs Salaa'll) t cbtcci the 1q·th day of Au.gust, 1J98 in Civil Case No. 1-,2 of._'!))97 ----- I ! In the Bigh Court of T2mzania at Dc:r es .Salaam 1 the appellant ( l j comJJany sut::d the responclent 1 the Governn10nt of Tanzania, tbrough the ": I Pri..."1cipal Socr.:;tary t•:inistry of I~duc,:,,tion claiming tl':e sum of Shs. 7 ,6oo 1 000/= for goods sold and delivered to J?ugu Secondary School 1 a government educational facility. '.l.'he appelL.."t.nt also claiincd :interest at the rate of 31% b.:dng ti,0 commercial rat& ruling at the t:imG, from the date of f·i1.L'l'lg this suit to the da.t8 of judgement and at th•2 rate l of 1Z,.(. from the date: of jt:.dg.em,mt to full settlement plus· costs• We I ·f~R9 .,-. 1967 not thi? J_)ri...'i:c i_pi?-;L ·-,:ff.fib ff-of the "}f irlw tri. or e\id;Lri.gs Act__--,- Jfev:~_rrime11.t- depar~tinent concerneci •.· It Has for this reason th2.t in this I . .I appeal the Attorn8y Genernl wii..s .subs ti tub:,d. as the respondent. l i ., .../2 \i'Y'\ 2. - ·v 4, ' Be thll.t as it may, as it turned ,out the daf,:mdant paid the ohtiro . principnJ. sum Hith:in tun clrqs of th~ suit being J.il6'titutod against it. -;1-, I( Hence at the hearing, the issues beh/C!:en tha parties were reduced to def!1e.nd for interest, telling; the::· trial jud.Ge ·tho.t. t.'1er0 was ~o justification for the respondont to b8 orc1.cr(:d to pay :i.ntcrast •on the principal sum because: the app0J.lant had filed tho suit prematurely and it v:01s supplying tliu goods on credit and that th0r0-forc the payrnent of inter2st \vas not in tho contemplation of the: partfos. He ,l.dd~d that this demc•.nd. for interest does not fi::.1.d support 0ith0r under .Section 29 (); or 0.20 r.21 of thE: Civil Proccdur-.:: Code. In reply, t'i.!~ Lus~ submitted ths.t the appellant was entitled . to interest because th8 re3pondcnt tc-ok a lor.g time· nfter th0 demand to settle the.:, amount due, that tho a11pellr:mt bad U5ed its own money to pay for tbe goods, nnd that this mo_ney would have earned som0 interest at commc-rcial r3.tc if it ho.d been kept in the bank.. In his rul:ing ( we do not ~mo\v why the judge c.::-~lled his dee i.s ion a ruli,.'1.g) tlw tri.:11 judge b.,:;-ld tllat he,)did not think it was L"l the contee1plD.tion of p:,1rtio2s th.:l.t intere:st would b8 po.yable iI1 the event of late scttleme::nt of invoices, but th~t since it took the respondent more thon n. y•2.,:..r to settle tho amount due, the appellant HnB entitled to at least nominc.l in.t-.::rest. Accordingly be aw:u-ded interest at 7:{. 'l'he cl.})lX~llant compm1y ;,12\s not satisfied with thiB ruling in two respects, n1:m1ely, the r0.t0 of i:Gtc:r~Gt whic:::1 was awarded and the non cl.Warding of costs. Henco in UJis C1.pp0r.:.l \•iilich is anchored on two grou."'lds of appG>al, the ::,ppellnnt compl :iincd in Grcund, 1 that the l~.3.rned judge 0 erred in l;:n•r i...'1 refusing to g_rrmt the plai...7.tiff interest at commercial rate of 31% from the dato the 0.efcnde.nt doiault0d in p2..ymcnt to the .; '' ,· l ' :·:~ ·~ "I . I '7. :; date of judgement, e.nd in Ground 2 th,'lt th\:J t:r.:i.,<i.l judt.~o err-ll'd irt J..o.w in -·-····-·-1:. not .,~war·ding costs to the pled.ntiff. At the ha:\r:i.nt; of this uppe!:al, !J.r..•M..k~~~ leurned co\L-wol who appo.nred for th~: o.ppollr.-mt sub:nitted in support of his a.ppe.~l that the aw.:ird of intc•r~st .:tt the rat0 of 7% could not b0 jt.U::tified bcc.:1use tho principal sum b,'.:\d alr0.::1.dy b0en p-:>.icl when the cw.;;e came up for hen.ring, and that thcr-0 ie no ret'.Son why costs \'Mre not o.warclcd to the e.ppcll..".l.nt., In reply Hr. J1w~dund1i did not :in om· vi(::w mai.(<:? a ceriol.IB challenge 0.20 to Hr. Lu13ua's compln.ir.ts, but be subniittGd. thHt under L r.21, .ir1tcreGt is at tht:: di.$cr0t:i.on of ti:ie court nnd b:-1,:~t H i.s d.ivided into two periods. 'J.'hc first period iE from thE: datG of filing the suit to the deli very of jude;0rr!0nt, Llnd the second poriod is from the dt1.t.r~ of judgement to full p:3.ymt')nt, .:i.nd. th:'l.t the r;.ttc for th0 s0cond period is 7-/.J. As to costE::; 1 he ~,.-~id tk,t this mu.st follow th& ov0nt but thc-1.t the appcllnnt should have cluimcd them :in the High Court. We thi..11k Mr. Lu6 ua's position iG tlw correct one. The statutory rate cf interest i.e. of b:::tv1t:!u•:1 7l 2mi. "i2% ap:pli~s to judge:,m0nt debts only. 'l'hos·2 r,~.tes do not a.pply tc th,~ p;:!riod. be fore: judgement is pronounced by the Court. .'.l'he rate of i..11terest to be awarded for the pe.riod from the o.ate of filing to jud.gemen.t mu.st be th,2 comrnerc ial. rat.:: while the rate for the period oehmcn jud.gs::ment nnd full settlement of the judgement debt is botwc~m 7% and 1~~ as laid down in O .20 Rulo 21. With :!.'0g"c°tX-d to costs, ;v:r. Mwid.t:L'1d.a conceded that th:::y follow the event I but we did net get his contont:i.on that tho o.pp~llant should h:.·wc clrdmed then in the High Court. This must hD.. Ye been an over sig-h-t on Hr. Mwidundo. '.s part bec;::;.u.se costs were specifically clni.-ncd in the plaint. IN TIS COURT OF APPEAL OF TA.l'WiANH, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 74 OF 1999 , BETWEEN K.J. !-'.O'IORS & THREE OTHERS • • • • 0 It AP:?ELLI\.NTS AND RICH..<\_® KISHAHBA & OTHERS • • • • • • RES?ONDENT$ (Appeal from the Ruling and Order cf the High Court of Ta..'1.Zania at Dar es .Salaam) ""·• (Kalegeya . J:·') --•A••••--•,_ __ _ dated 8th day of February 1999 ···, .... in Civil Revision No.-24 of 1994 J U D G E ME N T KLSANGA_, ~ : A labour officer filed a."- employment complaint in the Resident Magistrate's Court on behalf of the respondent.s employees who are over 100 in nurnber. The appellants employers objected to .the m2.tter 0:1 the gro1.1nd that the requirement for filing a rep-resentative .suit 1.L':.dsr Order 1 rule 8 of the Civil Proced1.:re Code (CPC) was not complied with. The Principal Resident ~.,1agistrate, relying on a technicality which it was n0t~n~cess~rY to comply with. The 2 At the hearing.of this appeal the appellants were represented by Mr. Juliu.s Ndyanabo, learned counsel 1 while Mr. Lameck Mpira, a layma..11., appeared on behalf of all the respon~ents. In his brief submission Mr. Ndyan.abo reiterated the point made in his memorandum of appe--JJ. th~t it ,.;as mandatory to comply with the provisions of Order 1 rule 8 and that failure to do so waG fatal.. However, Mr. Lameck Mpira, being a layma.11 1 could not resp-;,nd to that legal submission. ~ ,'11 Order 1 rule 8 (1) (a) of the GPC provides that: i:8 ( 1) '1-/here there are ~urr..el"o'US persons havin.g , the same interest in <;ine suit - (a) one or more of such persons-ma!_, with the permission of the Court, sue or be sued, or may defend such suit, on behalf of, :or for :? the benefit of, all persons so interested; n The lea.::--ned riigh Court jud.ge (Ko-leg-B)'8-, ..I.) h0ld that the ruJ.e applies only to ordinary civil suits but not to employment suits such as the Present one. ,;;8,.I,TII?1'ti}rff.'e-Pf5:zlfq;:r~'%@e7 \'-rl'fi°'2n:;,J::7:i:n:,-:11;is;/E).p;i;ni_6ri ; .- giyes_· t h·e, · coul,':t-' d i9cret ion- ~:b."ifhJ;r; '~:/r--"i'{;:rto ·d:ts§e"nse' W-it:r: · the'"· reqtiireinent un,rer ;·1·.'here a case is originated b;r a Labour 1 officer I s rcpo:·t the techr:ic.lities of :r,roceduro pniscribed ur1der t:·,,_-, Civil Proced-:.lre Code may not be foJ.101•:ed and it lies 't1holly \-1ithin the discrc:,tion: of the Court to dire.ct which cause .. (sic) .,' .. 3 to be followed and all this is without undue regard to ~ c a l i t i e s of Jr~ed~ so as to attain substa.~tive justice.n SQction 1.34 of the Employ-:nent Or-di.nan~ whioh tho l ~ e d · judge relied on says that:- · t1134 - (1) On th9 r9Ct&ipt of a report_ under section 132 the magistX'Q..tQ ehsul.. where the facts ippear,to him to be such as may found a ~ivil suit, i,e.ou~ suuh proi~cc ~~- ~e·m~y th.:i..nk fit to cause the parties or either of t·hem and the witnesses to ;).ttend before him. the (2) U,00P. t11c a t t ~ c e of!".:Parties the magistrate shall proceed to tr.y the issues disclos-ed in the re~ort as if the proceedings before him were a civil suit, without rgquj_rl.ng th.., parties or a..TJ.y _pa:r-ty to fiJ.e any pleading. (3) The provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1966 shall, in so far as they rr.ay be applicable, apply to proceedings under this section; Provided that the rnagistr2.te shall hear and determine such pro- ceedings according to substantial ju.stic,~ without undue regard to technicalities of procedure. 11 £~t'@tii1i~t~~ <tt1~,t:.fl}e~{n;si_i:i.s:fofrs o.t/fhf§:,~\i_9-t:;:i..dr('.;ct9. 'rot: e~<c}µ1e th.e '.'.{f JI?PJ.::lsttJoJl. ofpri:re·J::. ;r:ruie· g:~ci\'. {Ei).<i)f:;th·~:-'cPC. to,-'emploWen.tJ~~~~ 4 Th::: n.tle pr,rncribcs the proccd.ure governing u po.rticulo.r clnss or category of suits 1 na.":1~ly represe~tative suits 1 and requires such suit-s, if and when they are brought, to be brought with the leave of the cou:t. ff.bat is to say the procedure of a representative ,tsuj,_1 i~ only an alternative option to the ordinary procedure er r;...':.~_ch !Ilel'l)ter __ of tl:1-e group suing separately•/ · In other. words the dis::::::-et ion or opt ion provided under Order 1 rule 8 (-1) (a) is given not to the court but to th~ parties, meaning that where the group opts for this alternative procedure then the requirement under rule 8 (1) (a) of obtaining leave to ·sti_e has to apply. ffi:our.::..._i • ; ~~i~~':'~.ha·.t--~~~m3nt--:·:bs""'~f¥~~-m~n.~~~,,. _not a_. m:~e~ :fechnJ:E~1-iti;:..M1~_1~=.it '1, , •Pl~~ , :w The rationale for.this view is fairly apparent. Where, for instance, a person comes· fo"n,ard and seeks to sue on behalf of other persons, those other persons might be d_ead, non-existent or -:·.!' ) otherwise fictitious. Else he mie;ht purport 'ta sue on behalf of persons who have not, in fact, authorised him to do so. If this . is not checked it can lead to undesirable consequences. The court .1 \..1J i can exclude such possibilities only by granting leave to the representative to sue on behalf of persons •.horn hO must satisfy the ~ ~ court ti1at t!'-,ey do exist and that they have duly mandated hin1 to -. r-0 SUE- on thE:i:c bd1al[. '••· S0condly; · ur1d.er> sv.b-Ge.ction (1) of section ·~ 134 of th0 Ordine..r,ce, if the facts as reportGd by the labour office::.' appear to be such as to found a civil suit, th::: cou_~~ is .. ----~--------~--- -- ,. - ·--------------- ·recy:;.rcd to issue process to the parties to appeaz- before him. If lea-:.re to sue is not sought a.nd granted there is a da. nger of -----------------------------·--·-· - pcrCC>!iS e!h:i.cl~ woul'd certainly be improper. By gr~nt.i_~f; _leave, ... /5 5 r.owever, the court is able, after assertaining from the person seeking to bring the representative suit, to be certain that it is __ is..su.in.g--!)ro.cess to- existing persons and that those !}€I'6Qn.s .. ___ _ bP.ve in fact rr.andated the r-epr-Dsento.tive _to··sue.__or. ··their behalf. ' _ ~::.:-·.. --- .- -· - . . - ' - - : suits-::- the ...manda tor,r- :e:'p£f1ca·b..on-. o r--:-it -being :j.mj;>o-~-:o;r.:- -aancilone.a. ~-:" ·- . -· ' . .· ·-··:' toobnioalities. which, in terms of the provist> to t:1e section, I ; should be dispensed· ·with includG- the -ruJ...oi:; against b.earsey criden.c_e and those of corroboration. In the result, and for the reD-.Sons giv·en b.er'?i.i:l. above 7 , .. -we ... ere s.:i.t.i.sfioc.·t!::at tho High.Court_erred.iJ"l upholding the.dismissal of th<= .ap~llants 1 objection to the suit. That objec1.;ion is .accordingly sustained and the appeal is allowed with costs • ..... . . .I R. H. KISANGA JUSTICE OF A~PEAL D. Z. LUBlNA JUSTICE OF APPEAL 0. "· 1-'iROSO JUSTICE OF APPEl\.L I certi~':.Y tl:-::..t this is a true copy of the original. --f:./ -~T------✓r . ( F •L •K • v✓ I~l'lBALI'" \·-/' DEPUTY REGISTRAR