The District Court lacked jurisdiction because the LATRA Act creates a specific forum for complaints regarding regulated transport services, and the appellant was required to refer the dispute to LATRA. The trial court's proceedings and judgment were a nullity for want of jurisdiction.
The District Court lacked jurisdiction because the LATRA Act creates a specific statutory forum for complaints regarding regulated road transport services, and the appellant was required to refer the complaint to LATRA. The proceedings and judgment of the trial court were a nullity for want of jurisdiction.
Administrative lawumoja wa madereva wa mabasi vs surface and marine transport authority sumatra now known as land transport regulatory authority latra 2021 tzhc 12516 16 december 2021
The High Court held that SUMATRA/LATRA lawfully issued notifications and fines to bus drivers for speeding under the transport regulations, and dismissed UWAMATA’s suit.
The High Court allowed an appeal over a traffic injury claim, holding the employer was not vicariously liable for an employee's unauthorized conduct and that special damages were not strictly proved.
The High Court held that Regulation 4(3) of the Transport Licensing Regulations was inconsistent with the parent Act and void, so the lower fine under the Act applied.
Plaintiff, as a common carrier, is strictly liable for non-delivery of cargo loaded onto its vehicle. The evidence established a contract of carriage between Plaintiff and 1st Defendant. Plaintiff failed to deliver 400 bags of coffee due to its vehicle being impounded, but this does not absolve Plaintiff from liability. The value of the lost cargo was proved to be USD 55,835.22. Plaintiff's main suit is dismissed; 1st Defendant's counterclaim succeeds to the extent of the proved loss.
The Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Zanzibar found the carriage contract required delivery to Zanzibar, reduced damages for delay, and lowered interest to 8%.
The High Court dismissed a civil suit over alleged theft of imported goods, finding statutory notice and leave requirements unmet, the plaint vague, and no cause of action against one defendant.
The driver did not have a valid driving licence at the time of the accident as the three-year period had expired and the licence was not renewed; therefore, under clause 6 of the insurance policy, the plaintiff is disentitled from indemnity.