Saka Langaia v. Idi Athumani, (PC) Civ. App. 34-DDM-71; 25/8/72.

 

Saka Langaia v. Idi Athumani, (PC) Civ. App. 34-DDM-71; 25/8/72.

            MNZAVAS, J. The appellant sued the respondent claiming one head of cattle. The primary Court gave judgment in his favour. The respondent was dissatisfied and appealed to the district court. His appeal was upheld. The appellant has now appealed to this court.

            The following are the facts which made the appellant (original plaintiff) sue the respondent (original defendant). Sometime in 1970, the appellant sent his daughter to the respondent for treatment. The daughter was suffering from some mental aberration and the respondent, who is a native doctor, promised to cure her on condition that the appellant pays him Shs. 50/= as medical fees. The appellant happened to be out of funds at the time and instead of paying the money he surrendered his head of cattle to the respondent as a security on an understanding that he was to have his head of cattle back once he paid the Shs. 50/= to the respondent. The respondent took appellants daughter to his house and started treating her but he appellant decided to take his daughter home after only ten days of treatment, saying that the respondent had failed to cure her. He then demanded his head of cattle from the respondent. The respondent refused to return the beast to him.

            From the facts as found by the lower courts, it is clear that there was no time limit specified in which the respondent was required to cure the patient of her malady. The appellant removed his daughter from respondent’s home while the latter was still treating her. This being the position the appellant’s removal of her daughter from the respondent’s home amounted to a breach of contract by the appellant. The breach substantially prevented the respondent from performing his duty of treating appellant’s daughter.

            Generally speaking any breach of contract which prevents substantial performance is a cause of discharge. On the facts of this case, the respondent was entitled in law either to ignore the breach and insist upon performance or accept the repudiation by the appellant and treat himself discharged from further liability. The respondent has chosen the latter and as such he cannot be penalized for the unilateral acts of the appellant. The District Magistrate’s decision is sound and is hereby upheld: the appeal fails. Costs against the appellant.