Mohamed Enterprises Tanzania Limited vs Mussa Shabani Chekechea, civil Appeal No 51 of 2018

This case among other things provide issue of negligence and compersation to the dead person during course of employment. The court had this to say:

On the contention that the deceased consented to the risk, in the first place, according to the record, no evidence was led to show that the deceased was given the option of deciding to perform the duty assigned to him by his manager or otherwise. Secondly, the deceased’s
act of carrying a passenger had nothing to do with the cause of the former’s death.

The attack was made by robbers and from the evidence on record, there was no indication that they had any connection with that passenger. As submitted by Mr. Mtaki, the passenger was one of
the persons who were injured thus negating the contention that the deceased had put himself to risk.

We find therefore, that the appellant’s defence based on the principle of voienti non fit injuria is untenable. For these reasons, the 1st and 2nd grounds also fail. They are accordingly

Having dismissed the appellant’s complaints in the 1st – 3rd and 5th grounds of appeal, we now turn to consider the 4th ground of appeal. In
this ground, the appellant challenges the decision of the trial court
awarding the respondent general damages of TZS. 100,000,000.00 as
compensation to the deceased’s dependants. The complaint by the
appellant’s counsel is that, in awarding the damages, the learned trial
Judge acted on a criterion which is not correct in law.