Facts:
The plaintiff, Sayida Daud Masanja, sued Vodacom Tanzania Public Limited Company for substantial distress and loss of privacy. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant negligently failed to protect her personal data, leading to unauthorized access and dissemination of her private information. She sought damages of TZS 10,000,000,000, interest at the commercial rate, general damages, and costs of the suit. The defendant raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the case was filed in the wrong forum and that the plaintiff should have filed the complaint with the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC).
Issue:
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear the case given the claim of general damages.
Whether the complaint should have been filed with the PDPC as per the Personal Data Protection Act, 2022.
Rule:
Jurisdiction: Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code (Cap 33 R.E 2019) states that suits must be instituted in the court of the lowest grade competent to try them. However, it also provides that this provision shall not oust the general jurisdiction of the High Court.
Personal Data Protection: Section 39(1) of the Personal Data Protection Act, 2022, mandates that complaints regarding violations of personal data protection principles be submitted to the PDPC.
Analysis:
Jurisdiction Issue: The defendant argued that the case was improperly filed in the High Court because the damages sought were general and not specific. They cited legal precedents suggesting that general damages do not determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the High Court. The plaintiff countered that the amount claimed for distress and loss of privacy was clear and should be treated as specific damages. The court noted that general damages are within the trial judge’s discretion and that filing the case in the High Court did not occasion a miscarriage of justice.
Personal Data Protection Issue: The defendant asserted that the complaint should have been filed with the PDPC. However, the plaintiff argued that the claim was based on tortious negligence rather than a violation of data protection principles. The court agreed with the plaintiff, stating that the cause of action was tort of negligence.
Conclusion:
The court overruled the preliminary objection, determining that the High Court has jurisdiction to hear the case and that the cause of action is based on tortious negligence rather than a violation of data protection principles.