Dar es Salaam Motor Transport Co. Ltd. v. Mehta and Other Civ. App. 27-D-69; 25/11/70; Georges C. J.

Dar es Salaam Motor Transport Co. Ltd. v. Mehta and Other Civ.  App. 27-D-69; 25/11/70; Georges C. J.

            Appellants unsuccessfully appealed against a judgment of the District awarding damages against them for failure to deliver goods which they had undertaken to carry for respondents.  The judgment on appeal made no reference to costs.  The respondents then applied for costs. It was contended for the appellants that as no   application for costs had been made at the date of the delivery of judgment, the learned Chief Justice had not considered the matter, so that the slip rule in Section 96 Civil Procedure Code whereby the court can correct any accidental slip or omission in judgments, decrees, or orders was not applicable since here there was a total omission.  Reliance was placed on Quick Service Stores v. Thakrar [1958] E.A. 358.

                        Held: (1) “It appears to me that a distinction can logically be   drawn between the two cases – willfully omitting to make an order because no application was made or forgetting through oversight.”  (2) “I am satisfied that in this case I did not make the order for costs through an oversight. The trial magistrate had awarded costs to the successful plaintiffs. The defendants had then appealed unsuccessfully.  There could be nothing in the conduct of the successful respondents to justify depriving them of their costs. One would not normally expect an application for costs to be made in these circumstances so automatic does it appear to me. I would not wish to depart from the general principles laid down by Craw Shaw J. but I am satisfied that one must look into the facts of each case    to determine what is or not a slip and to determine whether the manifest intention of the Court was clear.”  (3) “I am satisfied in this case that there was a slip.  Neither the trial magistrate nor this Court on appeal made any adverse comment on the conduct of the successful respondents. They succeeded on every point in the appeal.” (4) “Accordingly I would hold that I am empowered under section 96 to correct the accidental slip and order that the respondents do have the costs of the appeal.”