Charles H. Leole vs General Manager Dar es Salaam Regional Trading Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 137 of 1997) [1998] TZHC 2146 (19 November 1998)

Mackanja J. IN 'l'HE TJIGH COURT OF TANZJ\NIA AT DAR ES .St.L.llfil'i CIVIL APJ?F,AL NO. 137 OF 1997 CHARLES Ho LEOLJI; c, o o • o o o e • • • o o o e o coo .APPELIJ,NT V1':HSU,S GENERAL MAtrAGER · DAR ES SALAAM fif'.;GIONAL 'TRAD ING CCFPOR,''CION ••• o •••••• ., ••••• • .RESPONDE'I' Jll)JGM.ii:N'r

Accordin13: to the facts a.s established by the triD.i court, the appellant is a former employee of the respondent. By reason of his employment, the appe].lant was allocated e. house by his· employer. His contra.ct einJ?loymnt having been determined the appellant was required to give vacant possession of the house to his· employer. It seen thnt he resisted the demand; so he was forcefully evicted by the respondent's agents on 3rd Januo.ry, 1992.. It was the appel12..nt 1 s case that the eviction rendered him.homeless between 3rd and January, 1992. His Rlleg&tions that th eviction was effected in his absence was not countenanced by, the trial court. He however brouf,ht these proceedings claiming· damages ,in the sum of Shs. 91 1 +,500.00. · ·This sum is alleged to have been made ·up Shs •. 320,000.00 rmd a gold chain worth Shs. 60,000.00 which he claims were stolen by the respondent's argents, and.costs of repairing dnrnaged . pieces of furniture • • The trio.l court dismissed this •claims as bdng unfounded, basing that finding oi.1 the fact that the nl?pellant, having perijured hirnself that h0 was not present during the avict'ion, could lie about other things as.well. , I have considered written ~arguments. by Mr. Mkong"la, learned· counsel .'for the appellant, and Mr. Lukwaro, 11.:arned counsel for. the respondent. I have_ also re-appreciated the evidence. I _have reached the conclusion the nature of the evidence ~nd the conduct of the· appellant and his wife· .. are incosistent with their allegations. • For if indeed a sum of Shs. 320,000 ... arid the gold chain had been stolen during the eviction it would not have taken the o.ppellant eight months, that is from Janutiry when the evictton was mnde to October, 1992 when he f.iled his litig·ation •. He had contended that his refridgirator Md sponge matress were damaged and that he incurreed expense to !'epair them.

• 2 The trfo.l Principal Resident l'fa,gistrate was entitled to hold thzi.t neither do.1n0gc nor cos"t of repair was provedo . I would uphold her on tlnt fi:c.dingo It is in this circumsto.nce that I find the first ground in which it is contended that the trial court erred in law and in fact by making a finding th2.t the appellant sufferred no loss despite overwhealming evidence to support that fo.ct, untenable. 6n. the cont.rary there was strong evidence again.st that c1aim. The third grou11d which is anothor way /~~framinp; the first gT01md would· also fail. The second ground' ha.s some force., It is there contended tha.t the the trial court erred by failim; to consider the award of r:;eneral damages while there was sufficient evidence• to show that the appellant slept out of the suit premises for nine d;;:i.ys, In this behalf tne trial court found that the plaintiff was a service tenant. That he was served with a three months notice after which he war;; required to give v::tcE:mt possession but he neglected or refused to vacate. So, according to the trial cour:t, the plaintiff has himself to bl;:une for the consequence of the eviction. Well, this may only be so if, as an employer and a public corpOT.3.tion 7 the respondent acted ':Jithin the provisions cf the Rent Restriction Act No. 17 of 1984. This legisle.tion does not apply to the respondent., this is made clear by ,section 2(l)(a). Even though this law does not .qpply to it, and even though the appeUai.,t h?.d ceased to be a service tenant, the respondent did 'not act fairl}r by arrogating to itself authority as complainant, judge end executi.::mer of orders for its own benefit., The evtlctionwas therefore wrongful. Considering, however, the fact that the grou..11d for the continued occupation of the suit premises by the 2,ppellant had cea.sed to exist, the appe1lant 's refusal to vacate was equally wrongful. In that circumstance the appellant was only entitled to nominal damages which I now as,sess at Shs., 10,000o00 (Shillings ten thousMd only). Sci hnve for the award of the nomil12.l damages the c;,ppcal is otherwise diqmissed., There will be no order for costs .. Delivered., In per.son: For Appellant Mr. Luki,,r::,ro 9 Adv: For Respondent JlJDGE 19/ff/98

• • , J ,.