Nassoro Athumani vs General Manager Pangadeco (Misc DC Civil Appeal No 5/1998) [1999] TZHC 390 (23 July 1999)

• ... • Iff 1 f;:.;E HICfil COURT OF T..Ci.:dZABIA AT T.AJIGA MCSC,. DC.. ci-.,il .A.p:peal 1fo., .5/I3.9a • NAi:.:iSORO ATI:H.1''MANI ,. ,, o •• ,, ••• o ,, •••••••• 4 •••• • ~ o • o •• J..PPELIJ..llI' GlillJERAL iv!A}JAGER PlfG.{.l)ECO •••••• o ••• • • ., • • ,. • ,. ••••• RECPQ:rDE!.111' ,..... ___________ .. ,.. . .....,.,,._,. __ JUDGMENT& ...... . ...... This appeal a.ri,:3es from the decision of tho District Court of :E>anga.ni at Pangani in Civil case 1ro. 3 o:c 1997. The t:daJ. Di.strict Court had dismissed the ap-pella.nt ts (iJ::S0ll0 ltTllUMru:·JI) Guhstantiva claim for Shs,.35,000/=· It did also c1.iami'3H ·,;;ha.t ma.y be tm.'I.lCC.l i'la. ~ a.ncillarJ claim for shoo 70,000/=, being oompensa.tion for tl:.e da,:y-s he had been fol1 ow:i..ne up h.i.s claim for tho 11ur0orted repairs he had done . ~ on the respondent:~ (GEI!filRAL !WlA.amR P.A,'.J(illllillCO)• The facts of the oase are simple al!d verJ brief,, In a nu.t-shell they a.re as f'ollowoa- The appellant/E.aintiff is a mo·lio:t'--l!!a.Ob.errl.o residing and work::u1g for [;a.in at Pa.n1~'.\i• It is his a.ssc1--tio11 that. sometime il1 March 1997 he was asked by ·!;he ros:pondent to employees, namely MOIW'IEID WAZIRI (who at the me.terial period was the hoa.d driver) 1lAKARI MKOMBOZI and tvro others to rePa,ir e.. disable moto;r:,-vcb..iole (Reg. No: s·r\l 2233). It l:J his case, tb.a;t l:i.e did s::.i to tlJ.0 ::00Sl)011dent 1 s • satisfaction and that the rospondent did, .t that material period, sot tb.e wheels in motion :for the payment of Shs.35,000/=, hoiu;; hi:J monios · for the aforesaid vehicle 1 s :repa..i.r oharces. But, he later on c.b.a.nged his mind and denied liability. It is rBtdnst this sad back ,zro1:u.1d that he filed the su:i. t in the District oou.rt for redr.ess. ,_In reut'tal, ..,the reapondent/d 1 3fonclai:.:h, vehementaly denioi'3' the claim. .• - - ' It is tho ·case for the-latter tb.a.t th.0110 was neither an oi .... ..:i.l no i.ritten .. . ' .. • oontraot' })etvre0 the pa..~ies to the suit.., The appella.nt/:!\La.int:U?f was : · • j I ·L< , / 1/,' ·, • •• thus :put to strick ])roof. . ~ .. ',,. of •• • _ ... .... /2 •

. . 2 Intrisically, the loa.rned trial 1::ia;_;ist~r:a·te found a rins of false hood in the a1;ipe].la..--it 's testimo:w 1.d ·i;b.at there 1;-as no supporting ev-id0nco to b0ef up his ola.im. Ho thus, disrxi.:::r3od Jc;ho claim for want of evio.cncc. r.rhis being tLc first a}?pellate com---t, I ::1avedispa:.;sio;.1a-tcly . re-evaluated t11e evidence on record.. It is &..fter that exercise that I am unable to accecl.e· to th.a alJJ.)Glla.nt 's c,,r,sortion tl.'-8.t the :L.,.1;1tant rospondent was a privJ to what he has E/j;:JCrted in proof 0£' .his sui -t claim.. JU:3 there was no ba,c-,ds to find anc-1 hclil ·t;.121,t there w·J.S privi ty of contract b0tween th0 a::n::ellant and tho :rospondent$ tb.01"0 is 110 ITa;f one can rule in h.i.s fa-,rour. In other ,;-ro1"<:W, the a.1ip0ll2;;.1t is attempting to create " ?s:i:."!?.:im tertio"• But tl1at is not tho lau in our oou..'1tr,y-. (Seo: Cap433 of our laws)o. L"l the upshot, I am in full a 6 -roonnn-b wj_th the decision o:f the trial court. The learned trial mag-i,':rtro:tc Has :p0:r1)ectly onti·hled to dismiss th0 suit for insu:fficency of' cr-.---;.a.ence. To do ot:1cr.rise would be tlying in tll.i;:;. face of reasor.d.:c1c ~d. nll canons of fairness. In the reoul t, th0 a}?PElll mllSt fail. It is h0:reby cU.sm:hised with costs of' this cour'G and those belo·ffo I-t is so o:rd.erod • J 1J D GE. _.......,.,..