Hamisi Sinbato v. Gladness Haduri, (PC) Civ. App. 66-D-67, 14/9/69, Hamlyn J.

Hamisi Sinbato v. Gladness Haduri, (PC) Civ. App. 66-D-67, 14/9/69, Hamlyn J.

The respondent sued the appellant for Shs. 720/- in respect of a plot of land which the appellant purported to have sold to the respondent, but over which he had no title. The respondent paid Shs. 600/- to the appellant for the plot. She paid a further Shs. 120/- for the foundations of the house which she proposed to build on that plot. Both the courts below held for the respondent, on the grounds that it was directly due to the appellants wrongful undertaking that the respondent paid over the money to the appellant. On appeal to the High Court.

Held: “The appellant admits that he received Shs. 600/- from the woman, but inquiries with an air of innocence, how he cold be liable to hr for the additional Shs. 120/-. Where as a result of representations of a party, the other party to the contract is led to expend further sums, and where it turns out that such representations are false to the knowledge of the party making them, that party is liable for additional damages which were in contemplation of the two parties at the time of the making of the contract. It was clearly a matter directly arising from the wrongful statements of the appellant to the respondent not only that she paid the Shs. 600/- to the appellant, but also that she would proceed with laying out further monies in commencing the building on the plot; she had informed the appellant at the time of the payment that that was the object of the purchase by her.” Appeal dismissed.