Sugar Development Corporation vs Hassani Shabani t/s Tanganyika Cheap Store (Civil Case No. 120 of 1997) [1998] TZHC 2182 (30 November 1998)

IN TIE~ lIIGii COUUT Oi? TAN;:;1il'iIJ, (D,ill 3S SAL.ii.AM DISTRIC'I' P.EGLSTRY) .. AT DAR L,;s S/J..AAM --. Q_rvn;.1 CASE NO. 120 OF 129'.Z SUG/1.R DKviLOPM2N'I: CORPO:RA'I'ION Versus 0000QOOOOO<lo0000QcG PLAINTIFF :IASS;U'JI S:IJ..BilNI t/a TANGANYIKA CTI.iAP STORB • • • • • DEFENDANT. RULING On 5th March, 1997, the plaintiff, :3u5cg.J?ey~~nt Corroration_, sued the defendant, J.lassani_~~~ Eas~§ni,_ t/a Tanganyik£:__Chea,E S_t~, for Shs. 17,834,000/= being the baL-.nce of the price of [joods sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant. In his written statement of do fence, th'::J defendar1t, in effect, admits liability, but he adds that he is unable to pay the debt because the remaining coods were gutted by fire and his insurers, the Ne .. tional Insurance Corporation, (herein-after referred to as N.I.C.) are yet to . indemnify him. 1 ~ On 7th of November, 1997, the defendant filed an a})plication for leave to be granted to the defendant/applicant to present a third party notice ag8inst N.I.C. Durine; the hearing of the applic.J.tion, Mr. Mhango, learned cousel for the plaintiff/respondent, O)Jposed the application. In learned counsel I s submission, since the defendant admit1:; liability for the principal sum, and as there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and . it:t • f. 1 lJ:,ifal Insur:mc-J Corporatio:n 4 r.'.nj furth~r 1 E£ ·t1.1e ckfend:mt - htJ.,S c,lre.:::id.y · ileet L!gainst N .I.C. ·in which the defendant I s claim includes the amount the defendant owes the plaintiff, there is no basis··for a third party notice in the circumstances.

2 In reply, Mro Rweikiza, learned counsel for the defendant/applicant said that had National Insurance Corporation inder:mified the defendant, the defendant would have paid. the plaintiff in this case, and that in any case, it was for National Insurance Cclrporation to resist be inf_!; joined as a party. Without labouring the pmint, it is beyond dispute that the defendant adrni ts liability as to the principal sum. i,Ji th regard to National Insurance Corporation~ I res}Jectfully agree with le,;1rned counsel for the plaintiff respondent that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and. National Insurance Corporation. The le[al relationships between the plaintiff, respondent and the defendant/applicant on the one hand, and that between the defendant/applicant and National Insurance Corporation on the other hand, are totally different. It might have be,m a different matter, perhaps, if National Insurance Corporation had· t,"llaranteed payi:1ent for the goods at the tirne the contract for sale of the goos by the plaintiff to the defendant was made. In my view, the defendant has rightly filed a suit against National Im~urance Corporation in relation to a transaction between the two, which transaction has nothing to do with the plaintiff in the present suito , For these reasons, the application for leave to issue a third 1Jarty notice on National Insurance Corporation is hereby refused, and judgment is hereby entered for the plaintiff on admission in the sum of TShs. 17,834,000/=. The isf,ue as to costs a.'ld interest shall be resolved by wa:y of mediation or trial, as the ca,se may be • --.----✓-···· . / [ . // BO DO ClIIFZTiL Ruling delivered in Char;1bers this 30th dny of November, 1998 in presence of Mr. Mhango, advocate for plaintiff/respondent, and holdine; Mr. Rweikiza's brief for applicants. B. Do CIIIPETA JUDGE