20131203 TZHC Dar es Salaam

20131203 TZHC Dar es Salaam

The 1st Defendant, by actively directing the sale process, showing the outdated 2007 valuation, concealing the 2009 valuation, and making false statements about the property's value, committed fraudulent misrepresentation that induced the Plaintiff to pay Tshs. 1 Billion more than it otherwise would have. The Receivers (2nd and 3rd Defendants) did not commit fraudulent misrepresentation as their role was passive and limited to following instructions. The Plaintiff is entitled to a refund of the overpayment and general damages, but not to the full extent claimed.

Citation
20131203 TZHC Dar es Salaam
Parties
Plaintiff: Basic Element Limited; 1st Defendant: National Bank of Commerce Limited; 2nd Defendant: Silvanus Benedict Mlola t/a Kisarika Malimi & Mlola (Advocates); 3rd Defendant: Seni Songwe Malimi t/a Kisarika Malimi & Mlola (Advocates)
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
3 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Partly allowed as against the 1st Defendant; dismissed as against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Receivership, Agency, Sale of Mortgaged Property, Damages
Source Language
English
Contract Law Banking Law Company Law Property Law Fraudulent Misrepresentation Receivership Agency Sale of Mortgaged Property +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Basic Element Limited

Plaintiff

National Bank of Commerce Limited

1st Defendant

Silvanus Benedict Mlola t/a Kisarika Malimi & Mlola (Advocates)

2nd Defendant

Seni Songwe Malimi t/a Kisarika Malimi & Mlola (Advocates)

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2nd and 3rd Defendants were agents of the 1st Defendant in the disposal of the property
  2. 2 Whether the Credit Facility Letter was part of the Sale Agreement
  3. 3 Whether the Defendants made fraudulent misrepresentations to the Plaintiff

Ratio Decidendi

The 1st Defendant, by actively directing the sale process, showing the outdated 2007 valuation, concealing the 2009 valuation, and making false statements about the property's value, committed fraudulent misrepresentation that induced the Plaintiff to pay Tshs. 1 Billion more than it otherwise would have. The Receivers (2nd and 3rd Defendants) did not commit fraudulent misrepresentation as their role was passive and limited to following instructions. The Plaintiff is entitled to a refund of the overpayment and general damages, but not to the full extent claimed.

Court Disposition

Partly allowed as against the 1st Defendant; dismissed as against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants

Orders

  • Declaration that the 1st Defendant committed fraudulent misrepresentation
  • 1st Defendant to refund Tshs. 1,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff with commercial interest