MZUMBE UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF LAW

NAME OF STUDENT: SWALEHE RASULI

REGSTRATION NUMBER: 1236155/T.23

PROGRAMME: LLB I

COURSE: LEGAL METHOD II

CODE: LAW 121

LECTURER NAME: DR. J. NKOBOGO

TASK: INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT

SUBMISSION DATE: 14 May, 2024

QUESTION;

The decision of the High Court of Tanzania in B.A. Minga v Mwananchi Total Service Station,
Shinyanga and Total (T) Ltd (1972) HCD 241 is founded on the common law cases on the
development of the law of negligence. Elucidate.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 THE BRIEF OF THE CASE .................................................................................................... 1

1.2 IMPORTANT OF THE CASE ................................................................................................. 1

2.0 MAIN DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Donoghue v Stevenson ............................................................................................................. 2

2.2 Grant v Australian Knitting Mills ............................................................................................. 2

2.3 George v Stivingstone ............................................................................................................... 3

2.4 In Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd ................................................................. 3

3.0 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 3

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 4

i
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Without any doubt, it's true that the High Court of Tanzania in B.A. Minga v Mwananchi Total
Service Station, Shinyanga and Total (T) Ltd is founded on the common law cases on the
development of the of negligence.

1.1 THE BRIEF OF THE CASE

Mwananchi Total Service Station that the (respondent) was a seller of fuel generally and kerosene
in particular. During that time there was scarcity of fuel. Because of this, sellers of fuel were used
to mix diesel with kerosene in order-to increase the quantity of fuel in the market. On the material
day the appellant sent his child to the fuel station to buy kerosene. The kerosene sold to the child
was mixed with petrol. When the fuel was taken home it was funneled in the small lamp. When
fire was lit it exploded burning a substantial part of the appellant's property.

EL-Kindy, J. held that the law imposes a duty to take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions
which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure persons so closely and indirectly
affected by your act. He went on saying that the nature of that duty varies according to whether or
not the act involves a thing dangerous in itself. Finally, that liability does not depend on whether
the defendants were manufacturers or distributors both but on whether they had put themselves in
direct relationship with the customer1.

1.2 IMPORTANT OF THE CASE

In Tanzania this case was the earlier in the matter of duty owned by Manufacturer to consumer
that has establish the relationships between the Seller and Purchaser' of Fuel, whereby the Seller
have owned a duty of care for the protection to the Purchaser, and when the law found the breach
of duty of care, he can be liable due for his negligent. In general, the case of B.A. Minga v
Mwananchi Total Service Station, Shinyanga and Total (T) Ltd it shows on how Tanzania
recognizes the negligence.

1 C.S. Binamungu, Law of Tort in Tanzania,1st Ed, publication department, Mzumbe Morogoro (2002), pg. 45

1
2.0 MAIN DISCUSSION
The following are the evidence of the cases which make the case of B.A Minga Vs Mwananchi
Total Service Station their decision relate to the common law cases, that has been held by
determining the duty owned by manufacturer to the consumer and how he can be he held liable for
the negligence.

2.1 Donoghue v Stevenson2

This case is often considered the foundational case for the modern law of negligence. In this case,
Mrs. Donoghue consumed a bottle of ginger beer that contained a decomposed snail and suffered
illness as a result. The House of Lords held that the manufacturer, Stevenson, owed a duty of care
to Mrs. Donoghue as a consumer of their product, even though there was no contractual
relationship between them 3 . This case established the principle of the "neighbor test" that a
manufacturer owes a duty of care to anyone who might be reasonably affected by their actions.
Before the court found that the Manufacturer have the legal duty to care his consumer by making
a good product with quality of safety as it's related to the case of B.A Minga 4 whereby the petrol
station should be informing the customer that there's a mixer of diesel and kerosene.

2.2 Grant v Australian Knitting Mills5

In this case, Mr. Grant purchased a pair of underwear that caused him skin irritation due to
excessive sulphite residue. The court held that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to consumers
to ensure that their products were safe for use, even if the defect was not immediately apparent.
This case expanded the scope of liability for manufacturers for defects in their products, As
referred to the case of B.A Minga 6 The court would assess factors such as the circumstances
leading to the harm, any actions or omissions on the part of the service station that contributed to
the harm, due to the negligence of the defendant the plaintiff loss his property after using the mixer
of kerosene and diesel.

2
[1932] AC 562, pg. 578-599
3
Catherine Elliot Francis Quinn, Law of Torts, 5th edition, Pearson education Ltd, (2005), pg. 178
4
[1972] HCD 24
5
[1936] AC 85
6
[1972] HCD 24
2
2.3 George v Stivingstone7

The plaintiff purchased a chemical compound from the defendant as a hair wash for the use of his
wife, the defendant represented it to be fit and proper to be used for washing the hair, the compound
was so negligently and improperly made, it injured the plaintiff's wife at the time of using it8, here
the court held that the defendant is liable since he wasn't only a seller but also the manufacturer of
the product and made it negligently revealed that he has foreseen that products will injury his
neighbors (customers) and he doesn't take any reasonable action to prevent the users affected by
his product. In relation to the case of "B. A Minga Vs Mwananchi Total service," there are similar
circumstances involving negligence in the production or sale of a product leading to harm to a
consumer, that has been shown after the Mwananchi Petrol station mixer the Kerosene with the
diesel.

2.4 In Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd9

While not specific to product liability, this case established the principle that a manufacturer can
be held liable for negligent misstatements or advice given to consumers that result in economic
loss. It highlighted the duty of care owed by manufacturers in providing accurate information to
consumers.

These cases, among others, have played a significant role in shaping the legal principles governing
the duty of care owed by manufacturers to consumers. They emphasize the importance of ensuring
product safety, quality, and transparency in business practices to protect consumers from harm and
uphold standards of accountability in the marketplace.

3.0 CONCLUSION
In general, the case of B.A Minga Vs Mwananchi Petrol station has shown the on how Tanzania
recognizes the negligence in the relationships between the Purchaser and Consumer as well as
Manufacturer and the customer and it becomes the landmark case in the matter of Manufacturer
negligence.

7
3 H&N 211; 157 ER 448
8
Winfield, P. H., & Ellis, L. T. (1954). Winfield on Tort: 15th Ed, the law of tort. Sweet & Maxwell, pg. 128-130
9
(1964) AC 465 (HL)
3
 REFERENCES
Cases Laws

B.A Minga v. Mwananchi Total Service Station, Shinyanga and Total (T) Ltd [1972] HCD 241

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562

George v Skivington 3 H&N 211; 157 ER 448

Grant v Australian Knitting Mill [1936] AC 85

Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd (1964) AC 465 (HL)

Books

C.S. Binamungu, Law of Tort in Tanzania, 1st Ed, Research and publication department, Mzumbe
Morogoro, (2002).

Catherine Elliot Francis Quinn, Law of Torts, 5th edition, Pearson education Ltd, England, (2005).

Winfield, P. H., & Ellis, L. T. Winfield on Tort: 15th Ed, A textbook of the law of tort. London:
Sweet & Maxwell. Chicago, (1954).