Bytrade Tanzania Limited vs Assenga Agrovet Company Limited and Another (Civil Appeal No. 64 of 2018) [2022] TZCA 3050 (7 October 2022)

BYTRADE TANZANIA LIMITED V. ASSENGA AGROVET COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM (CORAM: NDIKA, KITUSI AND MAKUNGU, JJ. A) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 64 OF 2018. (From the judgment and decree of the High Court of Tanzania at Moshi, dated 31 st October 2018 in Civil Case No. 12 of 2016) Civil practice and procedure- law of evidence- doctrine of estoppel -when the party is estopped from reneging the promise. Civil practice and procedure- law of contact- parties to the contract- whether appellant can be privy to the agreement between respondents. Civil practice and procedure- law of evidence- credibility of witness- whether the principle of attacking credibility of a witness who could possibly tell lies in criminal is applicable in civil. Civil practice and procedure- relief - specific damage- whether need to be pleaded and proved. The appellant in this case was a third party impleaded by the second respondent, who was sued by the first respondent. The appellant was importing and supplying agricultural inputs, including maize seeds (Pioneer), while the respondents were traders dealing in such inputs. The dispute arose because the first respondent claimed to have paid TZS 87,000,000/= to the second respondent for delivery of Pioneer seeds, which allegedly failed to germinate, prompting the trial, while the second respondent admitted delivering the seeds

as ordered. The appellant was aggrieved by the trial court’s judgment, leading to the present appeal. Held: (i) The Court held that the principle of promissory estoppel applies where one party makes a clear and unequivocal promise intended to create legal relations, which the other party relies upon, making the promise binding. (ii) In this case, there was no dispute between the first and second respondents, and the appellant was not privy to their agreement. (iii) The Court also noted that discrediting a witness due to personal interest is primarily relevant in criminal cases and not civil cases like the present one. (iv) Lastly, the Court emphasized that a party seeking specific damages must plead and prove them strictly. The Appeal was partly allowed. Cases referred to: (i) Trade Union Congress of Tanzania (TUCTA) v. Engineering Systems Consultants Ltd & 2 Others, Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2016 (unreported) (ii) Austack Alphonce Mushi v. Bank of Africa Tanzania Ltd & Another, Civil Appeal No. 373 of 2020 (unreported). (iii) The Director of Public Prosecutions v. Justice Lumima Katiti & 3 Others, Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2018 (unreported). (iv) Zuberi Augustino v. Anicet Mugabe [1992] TLR 137. (v) Anthony Ngoo and Another v. Kitinda Kimaro, Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2014 (unreported).