Sophia Iddi Hassanali vs Adeola Phabian Iraqua and Two Others (Civil Case No. 18 of 2022) [2023] TZHC 16897 (25 April 2023)

Key Facts

Deceased Name

Issues

• The court determined if the plaint complied with the mandatory requirement of Order VII Rule 1(i) of the Civil Procedure Code to state the value of the subject matter. The court found the plaintiff had adequately stated the value (Tshs 263,000,000/=-) in paragraph 17 of the plaint, distinguishing this case from others requiring valuation reports for landed property.
• The court evaluated whether the third-party insurer (3rd defendant) was improperly joined as a defendant rather than a third party under the Civil Procedure Code. The court dismissed this objection, ruling that the insurer could be joined directly as a necessary party to ensure an effective judgment, given their contractual obligation to compensate under the insurance policy.
• The court addressed whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action against the third-party insurer (3rd defendant) by examining the legal basis for the plaintiff's claim under the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act and the principle of privity of contract. The court held that the plaintiff, as the administratrix of the deceased, could sue the insurer directly under tort law and the 'deep pocket rule', affirming the cause of action exists against the insurer.

Date of Death

Holdings

• The court dismissed the third preliminary objection, finding that the plaintiff adequately stated the value of the subject matter (Tshs 263,000,000/=) in the plaint, complying with Order VII Rule 1(i) of the CPC. The court distinguished the defense's cited cases, noting their reliance on property valuation versus the death compensation claim at hand.
• The court dismissed the first preliminary objection, determining that the plaintiff, as the administratrix of the deceased, has a cause of action against the insurer (3rd defendant) under the third-party insurance cover. The court held that the insurer's liability arises from tort law and the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, allowing direct claims by third-party victims without requiring the insured party to initiate the claim. This aligns with prior unreported cases like Dr. Loy Job Mbwilo v. Icea Lion General Insurance.
• The court rejected the second preliminary objection, ruling that the insurer (3rd defendant) was properly joined as a defendant, not a third party. The court emphasized that the insurer's liability is based on the deep pocket rule and the need for an effective judgment, citing Order 1 Rule 9 and 10(2) of the CPC. This contradicts the defense's reliance on the Metropolitan Tanzania Insurance Co. Ltd. case, which involved different factual circumstances.

Remedies

Probate Status

Legal Principles

• The court applied a purposive interpretation of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act (Cap 169) to determine that insurers are legally obligated to compensate third-party victims of accidents involving insured vehicles. This approach prioritized the statute's intent to protect victims over strict adherence to contractual privity.
• The court addressed the principle of privity of contract, determining whether the plaintiff, as a third party not directly party to the insurance contract between the 1st and 3rd defendants, could establish a cause of action against the insurer. The court rejected the insurer's argument that only contractual parties could sue, instead finding that the plaintiff, as the administratrix of the deceased, had a valid cause of action under tort law and the statutory obligations of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act.

Succession Regime

Precedent Name

• Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Company Limited Vs West and Distributors Limited
• Metropolitan Tanzania Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Frank Hamadi Pilla
• Musanga Ngandwa vs Chief Japhet Wanzangi and 8 others
• Attorney General Vs Hassan Abdirahaman Mohamed and Phoenix Tanzania Assurance Company Limited
• Austack Alphonce Mushi Vs Bank of Afrika Tanzania Ltd and another
• Karata Ernest and others vs The Attorney General
• Dr.Loy Job Mbwilo (administrator of the late Amini Amani Mbala) Vs Richard Mwera Matiku and Icea Lion General Insurance Coy Limited
• January Nshimba Vs The registered Trustees of Daughters of Marry Immaculata and Collaborators

Executor Name

Cited Statute

• Law of the Contract Act
• Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, Cap 169 RE 2002
• Civil Procedure Code (Cap 33 R.E 2019)

Executor Appointment

Judge Name

Passage Text

• "...the court held as follows; '...the third-party procedure is based on the principle of contribution and/indemnity upon the defendant being found liable to the plaintiff. We also agree with him that what is material is not the plaintiff, but the right to indemnity from the third party...'
• "In my considered view the plaint is in compliance with the provisions of Order VII Rule 1(i) of the CPC. The case of Beatus Makanga (supra) relied upon by Mr. Alli in his submission is distinguishable from the case at hand because it has different set of facts..."
• "...the court held that the third-party insurance cover was issued to the 1st defendant to protect him against liabilities which he may incur from the third parties (victims). In this case the third party is the victim of the accident (deceased). The pertinent question here is; can the third party sue the insurer? My answer to this question is in the affirmative..."

Beneficiary Classes