IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA
(DAR ES SALAAM DISTRICT REGISTRY)
AT DAR ES SALAAM
CIVIL CASE NO. 129 OF 2012
SISTI MARISHAY (suing as Next Friend
Of EMMANUEL DIDAS………………………………….PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEE -MUHIMBILI
ORTHOPAEDIC INSTITUTE (MOI)…lST DEFENDANT
2. PERMANENT SECRETAR MINISTRY OF
HEALTH AND SOCIAL WELFARE 2nd DEFENDANT
3. ATTORNEY GENERAL……………………3rd [Link] Summary:
4.
5. Material Facts: The plaintiff, Sisti Marishay, sued as the next friend of
Emmanuel Didas, claiming negligence by the Muhimbili Orthopaedic
Institute (MOI), the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Health and
Social Welfare, and the Attorney General. Emmanuel Didas, a minor,
suffered permanent disability allegedly due to negligent medical
treatment at MOI. The plaintiff argued that MOI’s failure to provide
proper care and attention led to the worsening of the minor’s
condition.
6.
7. Issues Raised:
8.
9. 1. Whether the defendants owed a duty of care to the plaintiff
(Emmanuel Didas).
10.
11. 2. Whether there was a breach of that duty by the defendants.
12.
13. 3. Whether the breach caused the injury or disability suffered by
the plaintiff.
14.
15. 4. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to damages.
16.
17.
18. Summary of Arguments:
19.
20. Plaintiff’s Arguments:
21.
22. The plaintiff contended that MOI’s staff exhibited gross
negligence in their treatment of the minor.
23.
24. The Permanent Secretary and the Attorney General were
included as defendants for their role in overseeing public health
institutions.
25.
26. The plaintiff sought damages for the resulting disability and
suffering caused by the negligence.
27.
28.
29. Defendants’ Arguments:
30.
31. The defendants denied any negligence, claiming that all
reasonable medical practices were followed.
32.
33. They argued that the injury or disability was not caused by their
conduct but was a result of the patient’s pre-existing condition or
unavoidable complications.
34.
35. Court’s Analysis and Decision:
36.
37. Duty of Care: The court established that MOI, as a public health
institution, owed a duty of care to Emmanuel Didas as a patient.
38.
39. Breach of Duty: The court found that the treatment provided fell
below the standard expected of a competent medical institution.
Evidence revealed instances of delays and lack of proper medical
attention.
40.
41. Causation: The court ruled that the negligence directly
contributed to the permanent disability of Emmanuel Didas.
42.
43. Damages: The court awarded damages to compensate for the
physical and emotional suffering caused by the defendants’
negligence.
44.
45. Elements of Negligence Established:
46.
47. 1. Duty of Care: The relationship between MOI and the patient
created a duty to provide competent medical care.
48. 2. Breach of Duty: Evidence of substandard medical practices at
MOI demonstrated a breach of duty
49. 3. Causation: The disability suffered was directly linked to the
negligent acts of the defendants.
50. 4. Damages: The plaintiff suffered measurable harm due to the
breach.
51.
52. Held: The court found in favor of the plaintiff, holding the
defendants liable for negligence. Damages were awarded to
compensate for the harm caused by the breach of [Link] he looks
sick. Considered whatever
53. Compensation will not revert plaintiff to the position he was
54. Before the episode.
55. Thus, while computing compensation, the approach of the court
56. Has to be broad based. Needless to say, it would involve some
57. Guesswork, as there cannot be any mathematical exactitude or a
58. Precise formula to determine the quantum of compensation. In
59. Determination of compensation, the fundamental criterion of
60. “just compensation” should be inhered. The Plaintiff is entitled
61. To be compensated for pain and suffering. Accordingly I grant
62. The amount for pain and suffering.
63.
64. Footnotes:
65.
66. Case Reference: Civil Case No. 129 of 2012, High Court of
Tanzania (Dar es Salaam District Registry).
67. Judgment Delivered by: Hon. Muruke, J.
