John Josephat t/a Karanja Transport vs Samson Mpenzu (DC Civil Appeal No 8 of 1998) [1998] TZHC 2317 (19 June 1998)

't AT MBEYA (Dal. C.Il.tIL Af,FEAI, N°' 8 OF 1996 (Mbeya District Court Ci1iil Case ' No_. 13_ o~ 199Q) JOHN JOSEPHAT t/a: Karan.ja Transpg;-t ..... • • APPELLANl Versus SAMSON MPENZU ••••t•••l••••••••••••••• RESPONDEN:t' MWIPOPO, J.: This 1s a consolidated apfClal invQllSing {DC) .CiUil · Appeal··No. 8/1998 against the main judgement of the Vibeya RM's Court Civil Clise No.1}/96 and Misc. Civil Appeal No, 5 of 1998 against a ruling r..f the same R,1·•·-C<Jurt · . . Ci'li,l Case No, 13/96-dismissing an applioation f(jr Stay'. Qf ei.itiorl pending the bearing Qt this same main appeal No& 8/1998 Botb a.ppoale are 'between the eame parties ,tho are JQhn Jphat Shao t!--v ... Appellant WhQ was the 2nd defendant in the trial tou.rta and#. Mpenzu the respdent wh was the 6riginal ple.u'.itil! ii) the trial i The llbQVementio?1:ed appeal is a.gs.inst the award ;f' terest .n13, -wlaer:-,.., . the abovementiQned MiscUlanous appeal is ~ 0 ainst a ruJ,ing Qieming ad applice.ti.Qn 'fQI' Stay -- tetutidn of the iow.er tiurt deLreiJ bti o_f Attachment for the t.inpti.id surn of ShsJ4,69''4604/ikti 'rhb "th.et,¼- the ldve1" courta prgeeodings Asukene Njesi Mwaipungu the 1st Defendant has not appealed understandably because he was a mere driver Qt the appellant wh has been held liable for the plaintiff's claim unde:r the dgetrine of·- • . the 11itariQUS liability being the employer ofL+st ·Defendant, The appellt has been represented by the learned Mr. Naa-li Advocate at this ste and in th& application for Stay of Execution in the lower ·.court,. Qtherwis, the appellant wae represented by the late learned Mr. Kapinga at the trial stage. The respondent has been .eprent,e,d t,ru'ought-llt. 'bY the larned Mr. Mbise.{Adv) ooth in the lower court and in this oorte The first ground of appe, l 1 -lie filed Written MeriJQi'an.durn j,ia. that there was error both in law and fact in awarding iJ:i.,3r~~ against • w•;. 5 ht of evidence on record. The 2nd anC..:. 3rci.. rour:.3 ~ appeal hilige

.. • 2 --i. b:-.•:iielit fn the first ground f appeal nat the ftlaE;i'Oi!ed ti) r.hc '.NS:"'O::i,::.1ri.- ¥e.suJ.ted 'tr4bi ta" :~~al armed robbe~ with the sufierer ·:-?:.::ig -~ ' ' . . irie:.:c!'".:--·nciise in~::> "'::hai lorry t_ogether with the respgnciozit for carriage to Mbt:lt?. ali of ..,,::.-:>:; •. li~.tt: > .· ; 1 prura.t.ed ·o:r t:h-e appellent wi.thi,Jt , pr:f'it acc:::iuing:'to t:::~ :-.2;:::,ellant. During the h8aring of this appeal. .the learneii- Mr,. Naalt (ADV} added yet another ground of appeal wit:hou..t -seelting le&ve Qf th@ Q ourt but without QbjeCtion_from the other side against the ,osts Q! ,6ha.63e.679/= which sum has already been truced by the Die.t.r-i~· -Gourt. He as.t~ this court to quash the- entire truced tQ, of Shs 1 679/• which ·he .sa:id was Wl.r;ita&t' and ,that it ehould lJ_e. interfered witll by this cour; r S,.30 of the Civil Proeedure Code• --'. .. miscellaneous appeal against the dismj.ssal, Qi" the applifation ' ,; ·for-etay.,of.- execution by at-tMhment.,,~ the appellant's'•4fITY 1

• ')tit . . r, No. M! 449 cgnti,.ins 5 grt>unds summarily tha.t such at'tathment was not done bona!ide be.cause . .1t wrus arriecl. QUt -.Q?l 2?/3/98 while the ruli,n'g-the applati., for the stay of execution.'i1' the dree was $-delivered until ()1 ·1i;t April4 1998 and that )mtnediately the prey-er feir --~ of ' - . exection as ·dismissed the mot Qr vehicle- was -pc1r.,J.meo ; ~ ·-Mthi& 14 days tb.ough there Jae a pending app to this eourt 1 H~ .also a tt in;h sale Qt the mor vehicle wfUJ.d (ievastate the ;M -41ppellant for it was being used for transport °Qusiness aNL gene:-atw ~ end. profit to-th appellan~, The learned tlr, Mbise (Ad.v).-ed ~ appeals by arguing th::.t t!le interest which was discretionary tQ the tourt w.3Q that falling· prir -~ the delivery of the court judgement and that ae fQr the court int~c•::..:.r it is mandatory that it should be ;impQSed upon the ad.diQat.ed Jwlee!!!mt/ deQt under Ot20 R.21 of the C,P.sCe Since the ap:pi&llant iti,fuse to 3.Y any .omi:,:::nsation for _;the· value of the lost goods he _ sht;ul.d not be heard to corn:fb.in ::·o:- ·-s=--nt:; ad_judie,ated ~ pay inerest and cts fQr the respondent too h,3.5 suffere:. loss of profit for the delayed ·eQOlper.b-iti()ll which blocked •••••• /3

. , 3 . · . , · . . . .has r · e"tra " • - • ·. - 1,: • • .. ~ !'•m ~~~ i{? e"'.bu8$& tct•L. -.Y: in t~~ting ! . ; tius StL.C 4 • • ... •- 'It ~ ~ • • • ~ .,.:;·_ • 1' . .. ... \ . . ' Qn ct$,.6h{;j md. Mr J1t*S:' (A~)°" ,;.rgue~ -that· h; had bee11 taken by . no 9ltrJ)rise for '~here .;as_cnention of it -i;1 t.pe; w.itt,n med!r.m Qf both · ,.. · · ne rs ·. · . - .. · - appeal. qn:::l there:fors .. rt:. me.de to ::ielicve th,c::rt the aprfillan& was~ not ,p&sed ·. . ~ t(l th .. t.:-.:r;o cdSt/3 passed cy- the lower qoutt". ,: •. On the appeal against the attchment ·· ar::the. mrt9r vehiel the l@aroed . a ; ~~' . ~ kr. t-'::::isi:i argued til&~ it ,,;asebesGacy ,-~~equenell-,ef';.the ngn.pf.:t o! the entire judgement debt whih has sna1i79Q1 • .t::~ the p;inaipal ;uge

debt yet to be paid since the satisfied. judent. --· u· S41IID.•- whereas the adjudged judgment/debt V>-J.?,7o8•79Q/ci, Thee ie O ,i•· .,. .< -i.·,~~~~ the taxed cts of &hs.,6)2,l:l'/Q/a ~ ;blt,er at si,1,34,-~34/•w :-~~ · l .. - .. :f · . ~ ,. , had fallen due 'by 2/3/98 taitaling:.Shs"4t697J6Co/r.ed in tlle war or attachment usive Sha.335Jt~ :f~ :: p~~ ,j1.dgemli1i ebt .. ·. ~ ~ ·:· -. To start ·with the appeal on interest( the lgwer it ~ to Ati7e barely delibted 6n • · judgement ~ ? typed pages · I. the issue of inereet and the wtrd in his judgment . interest appeare<i[QnlY once in these wodst• 11 In tho upshot; the judgement is hereby entered in favour of the plaintit:t ,in the sum Qt &ha ♦ 5, 1oa°tffl/;;''•· ihteres-:s._'1a.11dl)etsts of tho su1'5". . There is also PW.1 •s testimony (" , E'l.:.:U!n Mp.el$) 9 prfSO!lt resd,fntl wh ' eovered the issue of interest in teetim in on"-~ p~ S4ntenf,la_ as to;JJ.;w~&iti ·, ;;I pray th,:..t he pays me the li1:ije:-$ ~ the s i;m c:lai,mocl" • where 'l'he otheP rlacinteres ~ is co•1ered in the pl,adings rat' ~ht plaintiff'.s - . plaintin para 9 in which he laimed 3<!8' irtt-.?f..,st NJ ip,f d, ••al :·"· - use of tho principal cl::i.im of Shs.5,708,790/=I He aJ.sQ claimed an0 '.;::;.;r 38% interest on dre .,._ t.- i(i QJf filing this suit until ful:. payment in pc..ra ( d) of the rAl.ief&rf, 11:"-, - In the one setence sw,.·m testimony df the r¢spdndent as f>W.1 whicA :~~.,"'? .)pposite side,- ·,::>t · : '1i ·ted,Lmust be proved '.)..: witnesses t objec'c ; documents etc• pJ,;, .:.: .-n

t ... •. ... 4 -

-,,ie:,~ h: bank°l it he.,mearit it tQ over his lQ,St profit after selling' th-. r0vds ft:i.· the us• tit' the gOod.s after theY were robbed•th;t was . ·•: •· • • • :·· • I , . . • . • . .• ' . , it.-4 ebred ·in para 8 ( ch (!f h the plaint. in whfch he ,1aime as clama«d .. · . . . 1(,: . ol lfu, .. 9.~ .. ~ lt pr¢'it .• espQtldent w9Ul,'d have TealiS:.d after • • •• • , ·,." '·- • • "' , ' -- ,I • •• t:. i."; the said robbQci good& ll.hir;b elaim was alroady 4iamitHijcl ,V ilal ~ tt"' •."1 tho1't an appeal t}tereof by the reaponden5, Moreover• ti. 1t.tuation of the appellan1: ~ pat!\tiMlif :tt' kt wti'e a ,: ":? _! .#E' businessman with e. smal:: hec.:-t and capital, 'lit migh hat9 4re,«dY UQd ., {..,.' .. · .. . :,:. eui bf now 1 u, was robe'1 for -e9er at.-c,.a·t io •nt,irt'~~ . '.I , .• goo win s.15M/w wbicli wer~ in the moto:r vehifl .. /h;t;a··,x-;r WM ehot . . I t . J-. •., at t111,oo. h~ motor •hi,le ~ ag(i and aom, »aJ"t• 0f \ ,va.wSelizect like tile spal"4' tyre• he bad to ineur th/91if. ot tfimri l'd P'iiij QttUe l'l'Offt HQJ-Qe>o:,:o lllbjlf' a.a":~ for the $tolon m.,-.-ehicl.a P···tQ.> .· e ·,:_.: Dodoma a.ud. Xtlomb.er'4} where the mQto• le -. J'tcQP•r•'1 a.ml eibQ\la ~ he has t QonpeneatQ fo't' ·all goods Qi other busj;e•mea li.ke FWt1 s:,d r>w., .w~ carnel~&r: gqods in that motor vehic)e and n4w OYel) bu mot~"~ ~ · .. ·:. :l ~ vehi1lo whica givea him live,ood as a to.ol of trad is beis1g a;ed td be sold tcj Ttalt.ze mere ,osts and intergsts of the reep;rtd:ent when the ... pi-inc;.p_al c:r,tal ciebt of the entire sum ~ S~~•" l\aa bten paid in full_ exetpt tor the he• ' 8, 79Q/= · · . Aetual. jt is$~~-ib•why th• pp:llant did n<1t aro4 as•; · th• ma~ j\ldgement (iebt of Sbse5 ♦ ?o817W~ .• ,~ •. li-dln FWtt•• and PW,a's ~ lwri estimony ahd from the testimony of DW.3 it was not all thr goods toniaid in the receipts attached to the plaint and pr0duc.sd as exhibit ' .• ,.'. I.:¼, .. ·. in court· which were .l3dee. in tr.J moto;• V(._ic!.e. For exa.'llpJA. i?W.tf' j,stified. · in chief as follows:• "All the goods mentioned in the 1·eceipts were l<tade d in the motor vehicle of the defend.ant except the busket covera whi. ch were loaded. i.;11 another mottlr vehicl.fl' • .,;. . .. . &len. .PliL.a -Willi.am Mpen;...1 testified, as follow.:~ ... •• • , .•. /5

ft'T ,,.,, • .. 5 ~ .pw.,.3,, ch~~~~ f110t. s.ria, alsC,·teaUf1lld as ·rollo.1$ f.,. :tThe pj.aint iff itame and requestea us to ailow him to •• • • ••• ' •• c" •- r -• ' loa.d his goods in ·that lorry but ,Je turrleid down his recJJ.b.:i;. He 'further cdntetlded tliat he be allowed to 1()ad SJme CI his iugage in that lQtry aftd the rest t'lou1d be ci!a.rrieci in Bt .:':hef tlotoi' Vehicle Qll the f ollowi.ng &.te; We ioadeci 40 :oxes ihto the l6rry tmd they belonged td the plaintiff• 34 Boxes ere of pltic goods and 6 boxe . ' i ' . were of kitchen uten¢ils Chinese mad·e.. I don"t know the contents of the load with which he remained 11 ~ Moreover,, both v.2 John Josepha.t Sha; the appellant and DW-a ptested their . in L. from ttimonies that the 34 b'a.x:e.s of plas.u and 6, boxe~ fJli Chinese ware enamel 1 would not have had a an exorbitant value of Shs.,5.,7()8,.?9Q/'=. and· the evidence shows tht the respondent tempered with these l.@eel.Pts and he a~~~edthat these l:'eceipts produced tn. eourt we.r ... iss.ued aft;er the robbery for having. lost "the original ones and P\il-2, did nGt allow DW •. 3 to keep any rec0:p.:. at all at the time of Lt..;.. vver the goods for transpQrtation that is why they had. ta jot down the goode in anoth_er exercise book or paper~ If the appellants had 8.j_c:.:ealed against the decretal. sum they had an overwhelming chance Of success of having the dacretal debt redued now quite considerably •. Any v:ayi this court can't do anything aia,. i1t.for the appellant himself is sat:..c;fied with "it and he has already paid it all t., the respondent except fdr the unp.aid Sh.$.84790/= which I hereby quash from the total claim.of Shso.5,702;790/= and decretal debt so that the appellant shall nQ longer I•ay it to the respondent due to the reasn- given abov-e that not all go6da were loaded ip Lat motor vehicle out of thos~. shown in the tendered exhibits of the r:ceipts. The orw. c J:-:':r&ct th::· was entered 1.1pon betw,.:;em P W&2 and DW.3 far the earryiilg of the c;o-::is from .. 3.r- •JS S::-.laam to Vibeya d:i..d not cover any . g·'.)t interest in case sooas - ... os .,. So, to clo.im f 02· a commercial interest of 38¼ apart fro,·, L.2 prof:... ,::ich vtaulC:. have been gained had those gog.ds • 0 • • -./6

.. 6 ,. and had they .. . reaehe4 tl:l~ plaintiff safelyl been sold is a bit speculative • . , . interest passe,C. by .J;ha learned Mr_• Safari (SWi) the tricl :na.gistrate was na.t. inc.:c:.:'.:ed if it were court interest or eommercial interest. If the ,l!t trial -C:.r..::::-t mea.-it to p:.;..,s , co::::,,e:-c:.'..:-,1 inte:::-est tl:en thal, i.1terest was not oral contract, the ::-.::::,ellE:~~ c'.i.c" 1ut _:;::.::..:1 anything from it, -as the goods were would robbed bj,' aroea bc,:1d_its c..nd the res:'.)o:'.ld.ent ➔ i:lc failed to prove how nt have o-,qinc. such . o::_r-- ·. an interest of 38% outside the expected profit which he claimed at Shs.900,000/= in para 8 (c) of the plaint but it was already dismissed as spe,ulative by the trial court and he has not appealed from it, So,I qash the lower courts judgement granting interest 38% in that s;nse and the ,a19ulated interest of Shs, 2 ,720,48.5/; thereof•

• ' . ,: i On the other hand, as .explained by the learned Mr, Mbise quite 1orrect].y t .. prdel,'- · a judgement debt must carry a court interest both under Section 29 an<3?20 R. 21 of the c.P.c. Actually, the respondent's claim in para ( d) of the reliefs jn the plaint of 38} interest likely to cover court interest. . . can:rpt , But court interest /:. go below 7to or the c.P,c. So I pass a court interest· of ?-,,;, o:'.l the deeretal sum G! Sbs.5.,?00-~ i ;t' only ( have B-lready quasheC. ---bo•·e the other r·:YJa:ince~ ·claim o.f Shs.Si o).) S:ince the judgement was passed on 6/12/96 and C:ecree drawn on 31/12/96 the first year for purposes :if interest ter.:1inated on 5/12/97 and now it is '1 year and 6 months ( to the ne::.rest month) which court interest of 7/4 P•a• pa:y the .caJ,c.u.latid ~~ is equivalent to Shs.598,500/=,- · Up to toe:.::.:' th:.; appellant .shall interest of Shs.59£ ;500/= ,)::1:.i.:· o There is thG other :pint argued b;y the appellant 1 .s advocate about cdsts having been exorbitant• 'L1.e lee,1·ned JVJro· t-fc.isc:: ::.::.i.2 counter argued that there wes no written ap:;;.e&l on i;; quite correct:i.y, bu' D.e did not object to the learned lr. l--iac.li from arguin:.: it. S 1 now the re·: 1 0°1den.t hc.S himself to he::-.r i -t ::.c11d he has had c",, c1c::.:.1ce ';:;o :c.::,.· · ,):::< to it and he μtilized his chance we:;1 l' , . .:.·,;u~:·;f ·1c!: t:-:e: cos·;;s were co~ .:.~.::;:;tly taxed by the lower court• There is a it· on who is st::::..tutor;y ri_c)1t :or a party t s.xec: with costs L · not happy with.{. good grounds to s.:p:i;;o l or ~a.lee reference to this court or to refer it to the Judi;e i:' t. ,~ed '- . .ry :lL ::J:'..:,-'.-_~i.;t Reg::..stra::- ·.s a taxmaster. Under ••• 0 •• ;'7

., .. 7 - . . ... ·:-.::,',.,. :-:-:·· ..... ' , . . ,,....:_, "-tP,t\ 11 th-tkt -a4 -cl;lioi\ ~ grant costs or not :;:: u.."lc.er St 30 (?.') if the coote are hot thi ic- then as6h4 mus\ be tco;r<i t() the '1eeree holder by f:}l::..ow::.ng given. I am prepared tg cieal with t!e .f::.irness .. cit the -::,e,ts lf;tl althougi\ tHre .. flS nQ point on it on li'e memor<--ldl,_a~f , both ,, :;,.p.peals bCD.U;<.. ".;;er-:. is. Ol(ia.gtave om1ssion whieh has be'::Il · un.detect,fd _

• ·•·'r -:· ·:'."'-;$:.. -/f:·. :-•--- """;-: ·.·: . ."' . :_ ~ . . . ·. . ; . .- - .
• r ·'fu al:1 "the ·two -ru:i'trersa.cy; .pa:rties as well as 'both .their learned Co"Jn.Sels and :,:lbe 1.rlld trial mgislrate as well that ai;tuaJly· the reepondent is claiming -. ,, . 11 the: huge, pensation' int1::rest and co.sts when he tiid not pay a single '~~t lo ihe appellant upq now for having (:ontraeted· Q trport his goods•- 'Part. of tllose goods W(;lre iμdeed loaded in the lgrry· .Qf •the appellant and the . · . ·'. · . . - _- by the _ appiants _ driver_ V.v,t'i Asukene Mwaipungv. and DW,3 t~'iled,dealinij witeoocw b ,, • - ·-: ,_ . =·:· : took , counting tliem• loadg them, keeping guard _of ;hem Vlltil they,off on -t. ir · : ·-- .: they tnem _ _ journey antarriedl,-v.p ti z.telela near Mikum;j. in MQrQ·g~ Reiol!.• ,,For t:~
• . · - · he · . iepohdent to benefit from the QmpeneatiQil l claimed. and which has bec::1 -·• the lQwer _ : · ·. -- anted by'LCOi.'.t a.t full value of the go9d.e loc¾.ied in,' he rnQtor vehicle it . · the same · · .. · " ___ · is ~ good as having gotLQ9ds safel,y del;i.vered tQ him1·i? Ml;,ey t.ei-eby· making him becdnla.. _ liabl_e to pay the prie for it J; hereby d ~~--·.that' the respondent
• •.· - · - - - · · - · : . of shall }>- the .carriage fee$ and harg@S !Qt- the hatu:ilin ··El.rid ai-r.riz;the . · - · _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ paio. entire goods ,a.s if they 'had reached l;;ieya where ·he ha$ already'"':oee.nLthe,l • .5.700.000/- . _ - in !rom · e1ien tor goods no transportedLMd robbed -=-.Lthat mtor vehe of the apt:Jellant 1 Both PW, 1 and P\I .2 are very eh.rewed and ,unn:iz)g iri' their evidenci) and in making thse demands fQr cornepnsation and · are very baive and docile in the evidence and in defending themseives in mentiQtling this euit, 'l'he reepondent haq cunningly avoided . anything about thei.r liability tQ pay the appellant and even whe11 "rosseexamined on it PW.2 the transpqrt fees ·-· purported tQ have forgotten aboutL:he w required to pay for transpo::-i:lg h - goods from Dar es $alaam to l-'ibey17- a distance of 800 K~ and the appellant and his agents DW.1 and DW,3 omitted to mention the fee they charged the reijrondents a.sent PW.2 for transporting thegij~ds to Mbeya. Fortunate2.y for tl::a ,:·_-.::,ellant both side.s are agreed that the goods were not ' - - ' ', a transported fort_free ride, but for a pric_e, To dq jvstice to the both sides and since PW.2 was asked on it in cros.s•examination .and he said on oath that it is open and trite for he had forgotten f.1 this ~av.rt to aeee.ss a reasonable :}::--ice •••••• /8

• ~ ti. ::::;.'1 it •e.d l,nal"c: .;lJ: Jih tst,ng~ ~ the iswner of ~ ,.., ' th,e-g~cu:i di::: rbt i;.::, .: ::-- -=::.t ;;;t>+-r Jli;hid.e -1hh means that he left · tie securE:1 o.e' __ 1•-.:: 0 c. · 0 .n -"e ha.rids of the public c;arrier and t1ith ~ risk s;_, i ::.Ecs L.:···.::.o,~ oc•::,::;:",_ chs fair price for trar1sp(lrting the g06ds some oi which were ·oreel-a}j18 &nd fragile from Dar es Salaam to Mbeya · a. distance of a;::,_, 00 ,,,n:::, sh,.:JUlcl have attracted a charge of ;,% of the gds value at Sl1a.,,;, ·r,:,0, ')(;/;. -•:-.i::,h is equivalent to .Shs.28_5,000/=• I hold this sum of 'i'.:1s.285,..ao/== 2.s the pri'-e c;nd consideration for the ' . ' ()ral contract which ha•; r::ac>, · 1 :he o.r:-i,:el:ant incur ctll this loss of i,hs.5,700t000/= .whieh c;an't be for completely nothing in retl,lrn, This amount of Jhs.2.8;; 1 000/;: shall be set off against th- eots of Shs.632,679/= taxed and awarded to the ..... respondent with his own remainder taed cost,.s Qf.hs.347.679/; only 1 (Shs 1 g32.679/:; .. Shs.285,/=.-) Therefore, the remaining debt payable by the appellant t~ the rc.:::r,on-.:'.=•ntr is.- si-_941'9/;; ~ (Shs59a_5i::V. • • cgurt interest for 11/2 ye2.rs :i,:;lus Shso34?,679/; remaj.nder truced _,()Sta)• These calculations are subject to correctio..s by both sides. The other consalicl",ted Jpeal a,;ainst the dismis.sal of the stay of executi application is ·~ 1 ..:.ite g-r::i1,;_2.1dful fQr in this appeal the qijQte-d decretal. debt <md inter~.:-,·~ an:~~ C•')c·':s 11?-"::.ch N"~ assessed at Shs 1 4,677,68l-t/60 same itemse It means t:'.:c.t tiv ➔ 1;1ode of executi~ nQw ·must t.fria"lge for dismissing the applica t i..:G -" n .:: -ta.y ::>:: xS41'rtl.t:i on ts:· eo. I allgw,00th a:ppe1:s with costs. The cost~~, tw<> a.preals shall be billed and.taxed with immediate effect. I allow the sar;1e truced costs to be- ·set ·&ff ainst the judgement debt and frt intere&t of s:---G.946,119/= granted to th pdent. The remainder debt either way is fr.e only one to be executed by either party. JW..JG 19.6.1998