Automated Summary
Key Facts
Lockfort Security Company Limited (Appellant) sued Wellworth Hotel and Lodges (Respondent) for breach of contract, seeking Tshs.46,980,000 for unpaid security services from March to July 2016, plus Tshs.10 million special damages, Tshs.20 million general damages, and Tshs.30 million loss of profit. Wellworth counterclaimed Tshs.18,012,488 for stolen items, Tshs.13,688,000 for wristbands, Tshs.13,760,000 for laptops/phones, and Tshs.20 million general damages. The trial court initially ruled ex-parte but later set aside the judgment. The decree issued was found invalid as it contradicted the judgment, leading the appellate court to nullify proceedings and order a retrial due to procedural irregularities.
Transaction Type
Security Service Agreement between Lockfort Security Company Limited and Wellworth Hotel and Lodges
Issues
- What relief (s) parties are entitled
- Whether the plaintiff has suffered loss from the breach of contract
- Whether the defendant has breached the agreement between him and the plaintiff
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be paid the outstanding amount 46,980,000/=-
Holdings
- The judgment was delivered ex-parte before the case was heard inter partes, creating a fatal irregularity. The trial Magistrate delivered the judgment on 6th December 2017, but the case was restored for inter partes hearing on 18th December 2017, and the successor Magistrate later delivered the same ex-parte judgment without correction.
- The counter claim was not properly framed as a cross-suit under Order XIV rule 1(5) of the CPC. The trial court’s framed issues did not address the counter claim, leading to procedural non-compliance and invalidity of the judgment and decree.
- The trial court awarded the Respondent compensation for stolen goods and general damages under the counter claim despite finding no evidence to support the loss. This violated CPC Order XX rule 4, as the award was made without factual or legal justification.
- The court held that the decree does not agree with the judgment and is therefore invalid under Order XX rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The decree improperly reflects reliefs from an ex-parte judgment that was later set aside, and fails to align with the trial court's determinations on the Appellant's claims and Respondent's counter claim.
Remedies
- The Resident Magistrate's Court of Dar es Salaam at Kisutu is directed to rehear the suit and counterclaim, ensuring compliance with CPC rules, particularly regarding the framing of issues to include the counterclaim.
- The court nullified the proceedings, quashed the judgment, and set aside the decree. The Resident Magistrate's Court is directed to rehear the suit and counterclaim in accordance with the law. Each party is to shoulder its own costs.
- The court ordered that each party shall shoulder its own costs related to the appeal proceedings.
- The judgment was quashed due to its inconsistency with the decree and fatal irregularities, including an ex-parte judgment delivered before inter partes hearing and unsupported compensation awards for the counterclaim.
- The decree was invalidated for not aligning with the judgment, failing to reflect the counterclaim's rejection, and containing reliefs from an ex-parte judgment that was later set aside.
Monetary Damages
15000000.00
Legal Principles
The court emphasized that a decree must materially conform to the judgment under Order XX rule 6 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The decree in this case was invalidated because it did not align with the trial court's judgment, particularly regarding the Appellant's claims and the Respondent's counter-claim. The judgment also highlighted procedural irregularities, such as the trial court delivering a judgment before inter-partes hearing and awarding unproven counter-claims, which violated CPC provisions.
Precedent Name
Runway (T) Limited v. Wia Company Limited and Another
Cited Statute
- Magistrates Courts Act [Cap.11 R.E. 2019]
- Civil Procedure Code [Cap. 33 R.E. 2002]
Judge Name
- W.R. MASHAURI
- J.M. MINDE
- I. K. BANZI
Passage Text
- I have no other option than to invoke the revisional power under section 44 (1) of the Magistrates Courts Act... and nullify the proceedings, quash the judgment and set aside the decree in civil case number 228 of 2016.
- It is apparent from the extracts above that, the decree does not agree with the judgment. The decision in respect of outstanding amount claimed by the Appellant/Plaintiff for the Months of March to July is not reflected in the decree. Worse enough, the decree contains the reliefs granted to the Appellant which are not reflected in the judgment in question.
- In the main, I agree with counsel of both sides that the decree in question contravened the provisions of Order XX rule 6 (1) of the CPC. Thus, it is invalid as it was stated in the case of Runway (T) Limited v. Wia Company Limited and Another (supra).
Damages / Relief Type
- Tshs.46,980,000 for outstanding security services (March–July 2016)
- Tshs.10,000,000 special damages for recovery/institution of the suit
- Tshs.30,000,000 loss of profit for five months to the Appellant
- Interest on amounts at commercial/court rates (18–31%) from March 2016 to judgment date
- Parties to bear their own costs
- Tshs.20,000,000 general damages to the Appellant
- Tshs.5,000,000 general damages to the Respondent
- Tshs.10,000,000 compensation for stolen properties to the Respondent