Humphries and Forst v. Nkya Civ. App. 7-T-70; 12/5/71; Bramble J.

 Humphries and Forst v. Nkya Civ. App. 7-T-70; 12/5/71; Bramble J.

The second appellant as group manager of a firm employing the respondent served a notice of dismissal on him in the presence of the first appellant. After serving the notice, the second appellant told the respondent to return motor cycle TAJ 520 which was registered in the joint names of the firm and the respondent since the respondent had not paid off the money he took from the firm for its purchase. The respondent tried to go off on the motor cycle: both appellants held on to it and after a short while the motor cycle fell. The respondent then sued the appellants for the damage to the vehicle. The District found for the respondent and awarded Shs. 500/-. Appellants appealed.

            Held: (1) “The first question is whether or not the appellants committed any tort. Their action in trying to seize the motor cycle was found on the fact that the respondent and their principals were joint owners and respondent still owed money. There was no evidence of the agreement between the parties to show that the firm had any right to take possession when the services of the respondent were determined ………….The leaned trial magistrate found that the appellants had no authority to act as they did and that a trespass was committed. This decision fully supported by the evidence.” (2) “A co-owner can recover the damages against the other co-owner to the extent of his interest only ……..”the respondent’s employer had money for him in excess of what he owed at the date f the termination of his services.” Therefore for practical purposes, the motor cycle belonged to the respondent although it had not been transferred to him absolutely. Respondent was entitled to recover full damages. (3) There was no evidence how Shs. 500/-. Damage was arrived at. Damages assessed at Shs. 250/-. (4) Appeal as to quantum of damages allowed; Appeal dismissed.