Court of Appeal Clarifies on the Extent of Duty of Care Required in Tortious Claims  

The Court of Appeal of Tanzania (the Court), in Civil Appeal No. 307 of 2023, between University of Iringa and Daud Mwakyembe declared that the duty of care is limited to dealings of the students while in campus or in branches of the institutions and may only be extended to other places like where the residence of the students is established, organised or overseen by the institution.

Background of the Case

The appellant, an academic institution, was impleaded for breach of duty of care as a guardian to its students who were involved in an accident while travelling to Ruaha National Park (the RNP) for a study tour on 3rd June, 2016. The respondent, who was among the travelling students, sustained injuries that led to his arm’s amputation. The respondent sued the appellant in the Court of a Resident Magistrate at Iringa seeking damages for breach of duty of care. The trial court held that the appellant had a duty of care towards the respondent, hence liable for breach of duty of care and ordered payments of reliefs in full as claimed by the respondent. The appellant challenged the decision of the High Court at Iringa which had reversed the decision of the trial court in favour of the respondent. Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed the decision in the Court.

Arguments Raised by Parties

At the Court, the main issue was whether the duty of care rests against the appellant. The appellant argued that the first appellate court wrongly interpreted the provisions of section 50(1), (2) and (8) of the Universities Act, 2005 (the Act) and if such interpretation is allowed to stand would lead to absurdity and each student of the appellant would be demanding to be escorted by the Dean of Students in the course of their daily activities, just because of the purported unlimited duty of care. The appellant stated that the omission to accompany the students to the said tour to ensure reliable and safe transport; and to manage them during the whole of the Ruaha tour does not amount to a breach of duty under section 50(8) of the Act. Thus, the first appellate court failed to distinguish between the statutory duty and just a duty of care.

The respondent on the other hand argued that the law imposes a duty of care to an institution to establish an office of the Dean, which would be responsible for controlling, supervising, and monitoring the conduct of the students wherever the University conducts its activities, be it at the campus or outside. He contended that the law is very clear and there is no any ambiguity whatsoever. Therefore, the duty existed, the respondent concluded.

Determination of Issues and Decision of the Court

In determining the issue as to whether or not the appellant had the duty of care, the Court applied the proximity rule on the cause and occurrence of the accident and injuries sustained. The Court explained that the scope of liability was remote and unforeseen by the appellant. The driver of the bus carrying passengers had a statutory duty of care towards the passengers, which he failed to observe by not considering safety of the passengers, hence causing the accident. Further, the appellant was neither the employer of the driver nor owner of the bus to be held liable for breach of duty of care towards the appellant.

The Court added that, the duty of care was limited to dealings of the students while in campus or in branches of the institutions and may only be extended to other places like where the residence of the students is established, organized or overseen by the institution. In the end event, the Court ruled in favour of the appellant and quashed the judgment of the High Court. All the orders pronounced by the High Court were consequently set aside.

Copy of this Legal News can be accessed by clicking here

Copy of the Judgment of the Court can be accessed by clicking here