Patel v. Internation Motor Mart Ltd. 13-A-67; 19/9/68; Platt, J.

Patel v. Internation Motor Mart Ltd. 13-A-67; 19/9/68; Platt, J.

Plaintiff hired defendant on a probationary bases for a period of 6 months as an accountant at a salary of Shs. 1,500/- paid monthly. The contract was not subject to the Employment Ordinance. Three days after beginning work, defendant terminated his employment without notice. As a result, plaintiff was unavoidably without the services of an accountant for the period 1.5 months. Plaintiff sued for damages for defendant’s breach and the trial court awarded plaintiff Shs. 1,500/-, the equivalent of 1 month’s salary. Defendant appeals.

            Held: (1) The trial court rightly rejected the defence that plaintiff breached the contract first, by requiring defendant to perform the duties of a cashier and to handle insurance matters. The duties of an accountant in a small firm with only one accountant are necessarily flexible, and defendant knew this since he interviewed for the job. (2) Even though the employment was for a probationary period, in the absence of a stipulation to the contrary, neither party had a right to terminate the contrary, neither party had a right to terminate the contract neither party had a right to terminate the contract without reasonable notice, which in this case was 1 month.(3) Although plaintiff was unable to prove any special loss resulting from the breach, plaintiff is entitled to substantial damages because of the considerable inconvenience to which he was put by the breach. In deciding whether to award nominal or substantial damages in cases where no specific loss can be proved, each case must be examined on its own merits. (Nitin Coffee Estates Ltd. v. Noran Mistry, Tanz. H. Court Digest, Vol. 1, Case No. 117, distinguished on this basis). In this case, however, Shs. 1,500/- is too much; damages will be assessed at Shs. 750/- Judgment modified and appeal dismissed.