Case No.:

AC-REV-20-1957

Court:

Court of Appeal

Issue No.:

1961

Principles

·  Contract—Remoteness of damage—Loss of profits from inability to use poorly repaired truck—Hadley v. Baxendale

Plaintiff claims £S.18 being loss of profits suffered because his truck was for six days unusable due to defendant’s allegedly faulty repairs.
Held: Because there is no evidence that defendant undertook liability for damages due to delay from faulty repairs these damages claimed are too remote to be recoverable.

Judgment

)COURT OF APPEAL(

NICHOLAS MAVRONICHOLAS v. OSMAN MUSA

AC-REV-20-1957

Advocate: Abdella El Hassan  ……… for the applicant

M. A. Hassib J. January 23, 1957:- Defendant is a garage owner in Khartoum.

In about February 1955 plaintiff brought his lorry No. K. 7418 to the defendant’s workshop for repair. It was agreed on £S.32 for making a batch and it was made. Plaintiff took his lorry and worked it but it went wrong again. This time he took it to another garage. It was the workshop of Awadalla, P.W. 4.

In the court, plaintiff claimed recovery of:

£S.32.000m/ms:  money paid for the work done being improperly done.

£S.18.ooom/ms: damages for loss of six days profit being the days the second repair took at the garage of Awadalla.

The claim was disputed and on trial the district judge decreed claim and costs to the plaintiff. Hence this application or revision.

The question for me to decide is whether the work done by defendant in repair ‘of the lorry was improper and whether in the circumstances of the case plaintiff is entitled to recover the said sum of £S.32 together with £S.18 damages for loss of profit.

On the evidence before him the district judge believed that the work done was improper. I agree with him. His finding was against weight of evidence. ‘The defendant himself said the following:

“I did not know the plaintiff. I was not present when the agreement was made. In about two years I remember that some one came to the workshop. I do not know whether he was the plaintiff or not. He produced a lorry for repair.”

  • Court: M. 4. Abu Rannat C.J. and M. 1. El Nur J.

Meantime, plaintiff and his witnesses gave evidence sufficient on the question of dispute.

This deals with the claim in respect of the sum of £S.32 money paid. As to the other claim of damage I cannot see any way for accepting the claim. It was too remote and has no cause.

In the circumstances the judgment of the district judge be amended accordingly and the following decree be given:

1. Defendant do pay to the plaintiff the following:

£S.32.ooom/ms in principal.

£S.12.630m/ms in costs.

2 . Remainder of claim of claim be dismissed.

No order as to costs.

M. I. El Nur J. March 21, 1957:—This application for revision of the Khartoum Judge of the High Court’s judgment on HC-REV-188-1956, dated January 23, 1957, is hopeless and should be summarily dismissed.

The application raised two grounds for revision, viz.:

(a) That the learned judge of the High Court acted against the law in hearing the revision before him which was 28 days out of date. Civil Justice Ordinance, Order XII, r. 1.

(b) That decision of the judge of the High Court refusing the damages representing loss of profit assessed at £5.3 per day for six days, as being remote is arbitrary as no reasons are given in support thereof.

As to point (a), the court has. inherent power under Civil Justice Ordinance, S. 226, to extend the time limit for revision for the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Civil Justice Ordinance, Order XII, r. 1, cannot exclude that inherent power of the court.

As regards point (b), the learned, advocate for applicant did not say why the damages refused were not remote. ‘They are certainly remote as they were not within the contemplation of the parties when they entered into the contract of repair of the lorry. The evidence before the district judge does not show any special circumstances known or communicated to defendant at the time of entering into the contract of’ repair in respect of which it can be inferred that defendant undertook liability for any damage which might follow if the repair, for which no particular time was fixed was delayed, or if it turned to be not effective as happened in this case (Hadley v. Baxendale).

Subject to the agreement of the chief Justice, this application should be summarily dismissed as hopeless.

M. A. Abu Rannat C.J. March 23, 1957:—I agree. Application for revision is summarily dismissed.