Moshi Mashoto Auto Garage vs National Insurance Corporation (Civil Case 210 of 2000) [2000] TZHC 31 (24 October 2000)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT PAR ES SALAAM ♦ CIVIL CASE NO.210 OF 2000 D. MOSHI t/a MASHOTO AUTO GARAGE.. ...... . . .... PLAINTIFF VERSUS g l QNAL INSURANCE CORPORATION ......... DEFENDANT B U L I N G IHEMft^ J: in civil case No.210 of 2000 D. Mashota t/a Mashota Auto Garage has sued the National insurance Corporation of Tanzania for T.Sh 21,70^,958 being balance due and owing in respect of repair work on a motor vehicle TZJ 1388 the joint property of t l / s Hatibu and Company Ltd. and 1st Adili Bankcorp Ltd. The Plaintiff's alleged claim of right appears to arise from a letter dated 24/05/99 by Hatibu M f c Co. Ltd. directing the National Insurance Corporation to effecting payment to the Plaintiff. Naturally in its written statement of defence, the National Insurance Corporation raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the plaint does not disclose any cause ofraction against it and prayed for its rejection. Arguing this preliminary objection Mr Kilindu learned Advocate contended that as the motor vehicle on which the insurance claims are founded is owed by Hatibu and Company Ltd. and 1st Adili Bankcorp Ltd and was insured by the ownere with he National Insurance Corporation, the plaintiff is not privy to the insurance contract Ohder reference, and at any rate the instructions given to the National Insurance Corporation to pay money to the Plaintiff had been withdrawn. Mr Kilindu baa further ^ g u e d that both case law and the law of contract direct that where a plaint discloses no cause of action it should be rejected* . th® faCtS of this o a s e 1 =Sreo „ith Mr. Kilindu that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant the breach of which would entitle either of the parties to bring an action before a court Of law. For only a party to any agreement in terms of the doctrine of privity of contract can sue or be sued.

• 2 « proposition i T * 1 satisfi^ , contrary to the p w * . n o t 00*“ “ r:°r; t t h ° p “ - « - - substantive right to the Plaintiff t t j " ° fa°tB “hl°h ^ ° cannot but be dlsoissed T ^ ’ * “ ^ defendant for laok of oaus0 of ^ y h “ sts “ favour of the It is so ordered. -- ' U a .\A v - { ? £ > • IHEMA JUDGE 24 / 10/2000 Court.- R-.jht of Appeal open to the parties. / ; , e « * - ■ y^A/v-v..^ s. IHEMA. JUDGE 25 / 10/2000