Gossler Gebr. and Co. vs Chinese Tanzania Joint Shipping Co. (Civil Case No. 52 of 1998) [1999] TZHC 172 (20 December 1999)

'. ,., vc, ::i. priv;,te comp:rny reGL:tered qbro"¼d, c.qrrier,, on 1.)t;.::;in060 :i.n. V"'llious pqrts of the 1orld. Ite r13;=:tstered Office is in :,:-"lin)urr in the. Feder:=ctl :.:-!epublic its reistered office in Dqr-es-Sl~~m~ It is .qverred in pr.<lf;i"::'i.f.;h three of t.'i'.:e r-1,=-tint tl1A.t :_:y l'lt1 instrument dted 5th 3e1_:;tembera 1997 i"i/G Gerh-1rc' q.1ucke Gl.'1DfI & Co., the owner of tbe c.r_:o whether in tbc subject contrqct or :Lo. qGsicnmeot is Rnnexture Gl t].!.i.S tor.t sit, ssigned 11 its !isnts or otherwise in respect of the in terms of bills of lqding nubers 1, 2, J 4, 7 for oe.q ,, , ci:trrige from D.qli9n. in the peor,:3.es ::: .. ::,f,,.,;:; .. ic of Chin-"\ to ,.,

Dr es s.qlq.qm nd numtero F - lj F- nd PF -1 for seq crri&e from xingqng to Dr e □ sl~~m. It ic common ground thqt comp.qny. I The defen~'J9nt denies 1i~~~•i1:Lty~ In <lddition it hs rqised three points of preliminAry objaction on points of l;:ivJ, n~mely:-

1. th:=it tbe i;,l::>1.nt:.:ff l".ck::; t.c.e right to be herd!J populqrly kown ic its lqtin clo4k of locus st'"1nai; l9rlinc t::o )r-tr'.:-J.ec: c:-::()rJG ·cc. "i:.,e governed by tbe l'At-> 1 s of thr:? r,soploc ::.ofi...,::,}.ic of' Cbin:::i !I hence the rb:Lnti:fF ic ~,).,rn::: t. institute its suit th ere; ern.ci

• '\ J, thAt the plqntif eing foreigners . . th:"t the }_:;l:,iutiff' l)-1s ')0 loc,S s·t:ar..d;h bac~.USG the :Jill of' 1-:i:-:i"ing evirJencin 0, tbe contrqct hr10 lx:·01dy• ben cisch--1rged. It is hio contention tb.::it ;nucl-::· :'1S :::i. cheque's nesotiqbility c:=ises upon enc!'-1shment, the r-i.ssi5n.-:;LLlity o:f :;,_ ·bill of' lqding ceqses qfter the dischrgc of ·the cnrso Since the cqrgo ws dischrged t D:· es S.:il.:.,7.m on i3tl:. T-,·c:-,rLHry, 1597, tbe bills of 1-:iding the subject of tbis quit :·.ec::-i:18 incpqble of 1::einc; ssign.e.d., It is ·qrgued t·LJrtt:r ti:.i::,t t::-:.c ri.ght to sue under ;::i contrct is ;,i rigbt in pGrsoo:=rm. Since the pl.:=1intiff is nei th.er the owner of' tbc c:=-irt;"O nor 7. Gp::::ic·.',.--=i l ouner bqving possosso:ry · rig,'l:lts over the c!'lrgo it C".'t,c-.ot t;:"::1:3 up the suit ::ind sue qs . ii' it W-" s .q lag: 1 repres~:m. t 0 , ti vc ·)f' tb o 01rmer. La"lrned -counsel cites severql old 3nglicb cses nci Orde III o our Cii! Procedure Code io Sacondly ::il tboucb jurisdiction vest0d· ic coDrt it is contended .tbe plqintif:f is estoppcd :from instih;tin,;. its C';j_t bore bec:=iuse it 1,,"ls q term of' tb e ch::i:rter-p1rty, t:·;;, t qi. l ,:.iepu t,8 Gb::i 11 bo determined ·, qccording tho lqws o cinq • In the third c·:_jocttrx, ice :u:: r(:,- .. :od t:h<1t-·tne plA.intif'f_, being q foreiin compqcy, e ororaa to furnish security fdr costs. 11r. 0l1qyo, le:::.rn0d c-)unse'L.for the plqintiff, h.qs mqe equll spirited qrguont. He contends tbqt tho defe □ dqnt 1 s sur.:,r.:1issi0ns regcird-:Lnc trrn :f:1.:i.s t obj8c tion qre- misconceived,· "lnd the cqses it cites re cl:snly -e:;istinguishble from tbe one before me. He coo tenC:n, th'1 t. ,=,,n ::i osignmon t unl Hrn •:1 po,•rnr of' :::ittorney/ tr~.ooferr ➔ the ri(t1ts from one p;;)rsoo to qnother nd tht the lqtter peracn :ecomoG entitled to sue in his on n.qme. H,3 cites pqr"<[.;.r:1ph 7J of' Volu:ne 'I_V of Hlsbury' s :.,:,,,.-s

tbirc1 ol:j,ction is u □ t8n:ot'::,le. H0 ,c:rc;:_1.,)s th·-=it qn :,pplic·:L.:.;:· for s1curi ty for costs 7t1,n;t c:1rnply \d.th. rule ·2 of order XLIII to determine tbe tird ojection fist, "Ind then upwrds. True it is qvqrr..:;,d in be '.·Jritt,:ln st,temont of' defence f'or costs penditi6 tbG t::':i."',.l 0-.C- t:.:w r:;1::it. Is. tis ryer rally of feel ingS of !.:is::ipprov"l I •')r cisl ike. It is n op?osion to ~ prqyer or suit in procoddincs of civil nture. A pryer f'or s0curi.ty :fer cocts c::innot 1 theref'ore, oper"!te '-"lS -'1n objection. get his costs should h~ fil to rova is cl"lim. And, qs conform to Order XLIII rula 2 of he Civil Procedure. They m:-'1y be m-'"lde in.f:)rmi.ly vivq vocc or .for:n9lly by cb1mber 3r_,-;;)ns. Let me s1y this reqrin~ tbe second objection. It is conteaded hy Mr. Jhqyo tht prticG to q litigtion cqanot contrqct to oust the jLrisc>.i.ctiot: o:' t1]is c::,urt. Of course qnyoc0 who contrqcts t~ oust the juriadiction of this court lw qnd public policy. Bu- I C"'-',n sec nothing in the ciefenci"'nt' s :,.rgumGnts th,1t te,1ds to oust tb.0 jur:i.Dthction of this court. of lding contqins such stipultion, it would hqvo bean p0rfectly in order to hve tjc suit instituted in Chinq, for in so doinG tne pqrties hv3 orely creted n qlterntive vGnue fo;:• the c1etG:rm:i.n ··, t :.c.c: o:f tb cd.r q:rbi trPi tion of divputes before qrbitrtion tribu0qlc in p~ris er New Your or London, N'umercuB disputes hr,ve becm A.rbi tr9tGd qbroqd in spi t0 cf the ..,.. d ' . t . d in eea, such qgreemen s ~re recognize in first i,.,;sue.

4 It is by2nd cntroversy tbqt, lie qny other choGo ~~ RCtioa, like /4ny other cjoce in qctins bills of lding re 73 of volume G thus:- nmos 06 ro suj □ ct t the sqme liqbilities tl: er.a. 0 (1953) I All .a. 723. So the icua reqlly is whether such :tvir. Sb9yo c0Dtot2'.s t;;:;,·c t·.1or0 ic no eu.ch term •. I bqvo mycelf exqmioed the 6ocu~~~ts wic~ constitute Anoaxture GI to the pl9int, copiaa of t20 bills of lqicg, but I cqn see no cuch 9 cnditioa. As Er. Sqyo correctly observes, The ocjc:-ction. ' Finlly l-,IEJ coma to ·,';::H?. it f,.)11..o:•!~ ➔ ·:;2'.lr.it once q bill of lding bAG beon qssirao tto qscignoc tqkes over qll propriatory .qnc: poi.:;sossory ri'.;:hts. E•.:1 consequently qcquire::; the right to su0 in personqm. Thit'. T·.;.'._:;l-it to Gt.18 ::::ntitles t.be ::\Ssignee of l9i~~ is Cischrged occe the crgo iG delivered. He is rig,.½t to so;ne extent; th"'lt n.o li·'.:i-:Llity t~i1.1 .qtt-<1cl1 to the shipowner if 11 cqrgo ts been d0livered in good ardor ~nd founced.

5 . tht governs this knd of· trGsqctin. In Enl.nd tbis positiot'l would be governed by the ~~lls of Lding_ of 1855. Mr._T2dyo contends .thAt is q sttut8 0£ sncrl qppliction in tbis Ordj_o:rncc. I gree According to soction l i:.,f' tb0 'nclisb Bills of' L::idinr; Act_, 1855:.- t-1h0m the :property in t::,o gooc}s sbqll p:::iss, upon or by re9son of cucb conaignraot or endorsem0nt, shll hvo traaferred a rested in him qll rights of the suit, cd e o~~jact to tho sme libilities in respect of such goos q if ttc contrAct contRined The word .aodorsee n tbc qove_quottion is nnotber expression for ssignae. In cr0r for the proporty in the The word 11 en.dorse" 1ccording tc t.:10 Concise Oxtcrd Diction::iry is nether persa □ o••" I.n :ny vie1-1, there:fore, :crnd since the ssignement is not q6e by w9y of qn endorsement an So notiog ws done in .reaect of t½e bills cf ldint th~t pqssed roperty in the s~~t goads t the lqintiff. It is in th.·;"it c:1ntextt;h:=d; I t,r.1;,1 hold -t;::'.·-1t I would dismiss tje suit. the rlqintiff·hs no locus The suit i.s cinmissed w::. th costs. Ru 1 ing sbq 11 DG delivered by the DiGtrict 20/12/1999

.. Dq te: 6/1/2000 C orqm: Mr. AdembR Gombe for the Aell~nt ·Court: Eulinc ro::ici tho 6/1/2000· ·(:ht':: presence of' Ademb.q Gomb"'I for the Aell~ot but in tb2 0aeoce of Mr. Mbuy fer the R esrionden t •. G/1/2000 9/5/2000