Misc Application No. 77 of 2022
The Plaintiff, M/S Planet Businesslink, a Tanzanian company dealing in motor vehicle spares, sued the Chief of Defence Forces and the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Defence and National Service (with the Attorney General as necessary party) for TZS 91,383,918 as the value of spare parts and vehicle accessories allegedly supplied in 2006 in preparation for the Tanzania Peoples' Defence Forces' (TPDF) participation in the UN Peacekeeping Mission in Lebanon. The Plaintiff claimed it supplied spare parts, tyres, batteries, tarpaulins and other accessories for 18 Land Rover Defenders after being approached by Army officers at 95KJ, and that despite repeated follow-up and correspondence (Exhibits P1 and P2), the Defendants never paid, causing it to suffer additional losses including borrowing costs and business losses. The Plaintiff also sought TZS 46,880,561.20 as compensation for loss of business profits plus interest and costs. The Defendants denied the claim, asserting that the Plaintiff never supplied the alleged items and that the Military Tender Board had instead awarded the tender for the spare parts to a different company, M/S Auto Rover. Both parties called multiple witnesses, and various documentary exhibits (letters, telephone message forms, movement orders) were tendered, but no proforma invoice, delivery note, or written contract evidencing the alleged supply by the Plaintiff was produced in court.
(1) Whether the Plaintiff supplied motor vehicle accessories and parts to the 1st Defendant. (2) If so, whether the Plaintiff's company was contracted to supply the same. (3) If so, what was the value of the spares supplied. (4) Whether the Plaintiff suffered any damages. (5) What reliefs, if any, were available to the parties.
The Plaintiff's Counsel argued that PW1's testimony, supported by a proforma invoice (valued at TZS 89,416,620) and follow-up letters (Exhibit P1) which did not deny receipt of goods, established that the Plaintiff supplied the items. Counsel relied on PW2 and PW3's testimony that the Plaintiff was awarded the tender orally due to the urgency of the Lebanon mission, and that Army procedures permitted heads to order supplies exceeding TZS 3,000,000 without prior Headquarters approval in emergencies. The Defendants' Counsel countered that proof of supply required documentary evidence such as proforma invoices, delivery notes, or similar records, none of which were tendered despite PW1 claiming such documents existed. They highlighted inconsistencies between the amount claimed in Exhibit P1 (TZS 89,000,000) and the amount pleaded in the Plaint (TZS 91,383,918), and noted PW1's admission that he could not recall the exact amount supplied. The Defendants further argued that any emergency procurement without following tender procedures still required a report to Army Headquarters, which was never produced, and that consistent testimony from DW1–DW4 together with documentary exhibits (Fomu ya S/mu orders, Movement Order, and the letter regarding Auto Rover) showed that the spare parts for the Lebanon mission were in fact procured from M/S Auto Rover, not the Plaintiff.
The Court held that the Plaintiff failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that it supplied the motor vehicle accessories and spare parts to the 1st Defendant. The absence of any proforma invoice, delivery note, written contract, or other documentary evidence to substantiate the alleged supply created serious doubt as to the quantity, type, size, and price of items supposedly supplied, and even as to whether the supply occurred at all. The Court noted material inconsistencies between the amount claimed in the Plaint (TZS 91,383,918) and that referenced in Exhibit P1 (TZS 89,000,000), as well as PW1's own uncertainty about the amount and mode of contracting (oral tender award versus PW2's claim of a written contract). Citing the Court of Appeal decision in Future Century Ltd v. TANESCO, Civil Appeal No. 102 of 2008, the Court emphasized that tendering valid invoices, receipts, and related documentary proof is essential to establish supply of goods. The consistent testimony of the Defendants' witnesses (DW1–DW4) and documentary exhibits showed that the actual supplier of spare parts for the Lebanon mission was M/S Auto Rover, not the Plaintiff, and that there was no record of any report or approval for the Plaintiff's alleged supply reaching Army Headquarters. Having resolved the first issue in the negative, the Court found it unnecessary to consider the remaining issues, and dismissed the suit with costs.
The judgment reaffirms the principle, as articulated in Future Century Ltd v. TANESCO, that a plaintiff claiming payment for goods allegedly supplied must adduce cogent documentary evidence—such as valid invoices, delivery notes, receipts, or written contracts—to prove supply and quantify the claim on a balance of probabilities. Mere oral testimony and ambiguous correspondence, especially where there are unexplained inconsistencies in the sums claimed, are insufficient to discharge the evidentiary burden in commercial disputes, particularly where dealings with a government or military procurement body are alleged. The case underscores the importance of proper documentation in government procurement and contractual dealings, and illustrates that courts will closely scrutinize the consistency between pleaded facts, documentary exhibits, and witness testimony before granting relief in commercial claims against public bodies.
Speak directly with our advocates. We turn precedent into actionable advice for your matter.