Company demands 200m/- in damage from Mantrac

The suit pending before the Kisutu Resident Magistrate’s Court in Dar es Salaam is being presided over by Principal Resident Magistrate Emilius Mchauru and has been set for mediation on October 27, this year.

Through Mega Attorneys, Summer Communications Company demands 71,036,000/- being maintenance charges of the compactor machine, charges of hiring the machine and charges of hiring security guard to guard the same at the site.

They are also demanding 100m/- as general damages. It is alleged that on August 25, last year, the machine owned by Summer Communications Company, the plaintiff, experienced technical problem when it was working in the projects of roads construction at Blongwa- Makete District within Njombe Region.

As a result, the plaintiff informed the Mantract (T) Limited, the defendant, on the need to carry out maintenance of the machine as soon as possible. The defendant operates her business of sales, supply and maintenance of various construction equipment and tools under the laws in Tanzania.

As legal owner of the machine bout from the defendant, the plaintiff used to contact the defendant when got damaged or needed regular services and the defendant signed her team of technicians to conduct maintenance upon payment of the assessed and deeded fees.

But is it is alleged that while at the site, the machine started mixing oil with water, leading to total improper performance and as such it could not work properly. Upon being contacted by the plaintiff on the matter, the defendant assigned her team of technicians.

The plaint of the suit indicates that after discovery of the technical fault, they opened cylinder head from the machine and left with it and the same was still in the defendant’s workshop at her head office in Dar es Salaam.

It stated that no any explanations to that effect were given, but instead the technicians told the plaintiff to pay maintenance charges of 3,950,000/- in order the machine to be repaired and work properly.

Upon payment of such charges as required and directed by the defendant, on August 31, last year, the defendant did not repair the machine despite the fact that the plaintiff had been reminding her on the need and duty to repair the same.

SOURCE: DAILY NEWS

• 596