Dar es Salaam Motor Transport Company Limited v. Mehta, Civ. App. 16-D-67, 15/11/67, Saudi J.

Dar es Salaam Motor Transport Company Limited v. Mehta, Civ. App. 16-D-67, 15/11/67, Saudi J.

Plaintiff sued defendant, the Dar es Salaam Motor Transport Company, for the price of goods delivered to defendant for transport from Dar es Salaam to mbeya. The primary legal question was whether defendant was a common carrier. Defendant called as a witness an employee of accompany which was defendant’s agent in Mbeya and conducted all of defendant’s affairs there. This witness testified as to the conditions of carriage and the manner of their display. The only other evidence on the issue was the conditions of carriage themselves. These stated that defendant might, in its unfettered discretion, refuse to carry any consignment of goods, and disclaimed liability for loss or damage to goods, whether or not caused by defendant’s negligence.

            Held: (1) The employee of the agent company was competent to testify as to defendant’s affairs, but he could not testify as to defendant’s affairs, but he could not testify as to transactions taking place in Dar es Salaam which were not within his personal knowledge. (2) A company had been held to be a common carrier, even though on occasion it has refused to accept goods offered by the public for transport.[Citing B.A.T. (Kenya) Ltd. et al v. Express Transport Company (Kenya) Ltd. et al., Civ. Case 77 of 1966 (Tanzania High Court Digest, case No. 374.] (3) The evidence is insufficient to show whether or not defendant is a common carrier. (4) The defendant is one of the largest transport companies in Tanzania and the issue is one of great public interest. The case should be remanded so that substantial evidence on this issue may be introduced. It was so ordered.