CIVIL APPEAL NO 395 OF 2020 MRS MARY PETER OTARU ANOTHER VS AFRICAN BANKING CORPORATION TANZANIA LTD ANOTHER

CIVIL APPEAL NO 395 OF 2020 MRS MARY PETER OTARU ANOTHER VS AFRICAN BANKING CORPORATION TANZANIA LTD ANOTHER

Except for ground six, the appellants failed to prove their claims; evidence established loan disbursement, proper notice of default, and absence of judicial bias. The mortgage sale did not occur, and the property remained with the appellants. The appeal was dismissed with costs, except for the finding that the 2nd respondent lacked mandate to sell the mortgaged property.

Citation
CIVIL APPEAL NO 395 OF 2020 MRS MARY PETER OTARU ANOTHER VS AFRICAN BANKING CORPORATION TANZANIA LTD ANOTHER
Parties
1st Appellant: Mrs. Mary Peter Otaru (Administratrix of the Estate of the late Peter Casmir Otaru); 2nd Appellant: Otaru Manufacturing & Trading Co. Ltd; 1st Respondent: African Banking Corporation (Tanzania) Ltd; 2nd Respondent: Ahadi Company Ltd
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
1 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs except for ground six, which was allowed.
Legal Topics
Mortgage Enforcement, Loan Agreement, Breach of Contract, Natural Justice, Notice of Default, Auction of Mortgaged Property
Source Language
English
Land Law Contract Law Banking Law Mortgage Enforcement Loan Agreement Breach of Contract Natural Justice Notice of Default +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs. Mary Peter Otaru (Administratrix of the Estate of the late Peter Casmir Otaru)

1st Appellant

Otaru Manufacturing & Trading Co. Ltd

2nd Appellant

African Banking Corporation (Tanzania) Ltd

1st Respondent

Ahadi Company Ltd

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants proved trespass and breach of contract by respondents
  2. 2 Whether the loan was disbursed as per agreement
  3. 3 Whether the mortgage over Farm No. 3676 was validly created and registered

Ratio Decidendi

Except for ground six, the appellants failed to prove their claims; evidence established loan disbursement, proper notice of default, and absence of judicial bias. The mortgage sale did not occur, and the property remained with the appellants. The appeal was dismissed with costs, except for the finding that the 2nd respondent lacked mandate to sell the mortgaged property.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs except for ground six, which was allowed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Finding that 2nd respondent lacked mandate to sell mortgaged property.