STANBIC BANK T LTD VS BOAZ SAIMON ILOMO COMM CASE NO

STANBIC BANK T LTD VS BOAZ SAIMON ILOMO COMM CASE NO

The defendant-counter claimant breached the loan facility agreements by failing to repay the loan as contracted. The plaintiff bank breached the banker-customer fiduciary relationship by making unauthorized deductions and failing to communicate the basis for such deductions or exchange rates applied. No sufficient...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
STANBIC BANK T LTD VS BOAZ SAIMON ILOMO COMM CASE NO
Parties
Plaintiff; 1st Counter Defendant: Stanbic Bank Tanzania Limited; Defendant; Counter Claimant: Boaz Saimon Ilomo; 2nd Counter Defendant: Yella Hawonga
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
1 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Commercial Case / Judgment
Outcome
Both main suit and counterclaim partly succeed.
Legal Topics
Loan Facility Agreements, Banker Customer Relationship, Breach of Contract, Fiduciary Duty, International Funds Transfer
Source Language
english
Banking Law Contract Law Commercial Law Loan Facility Agreements Banker Customer Relationship Breach of Contract Fiduciary Duty International Funds Transfer

Source-derived case record

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stanbic Bank Tanzania Limited

Plaintiff; 1st Counter Defendant

Boaz Saimon Ilomo

Defendant; Counter Claimant

Yella Hawonga

2nd Counter Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Case / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the banking facility letters dated June 7th, 2022 were breached by either party
  2. 2 Whether in executing SWIFT transfers to the Chinese garment supplier either party was in breach of the banker-customer relationship
  3. 3 Whether there was wrong advice given by the 2nd defendant in the counter claim to the plaintiff (counter claimant) regarding loan approval in December, 2021

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant-counter claimant breached the loan facility agreements by failing to repay the loan as contracted. The plaintiff bank breached the banker-customer fiduciary relationship by making unauthorized deductions and failing to communicate the basis for such deductions or exchange rates applied. No sufficient evidence was provided to establish wrongful advice by the 2nd counter defendant. Reliefs are granted accordingly, offsetting the unauthorized deduction from the outstanding loan amount.

Court Disposition

Both main suit and counterclaim partly succeed.

Orders

  • Defendant-counter claimant to pay plaintiff-1st counter defendant the difference between Tshs 754,793,054.88 and USD 44,500.00 (converted to Tshs at applicable rate)
  • Plaintiff-1st counter defendant to pay defendant-counter claimant USD 44,500.00 unjustly deducted