active packaging t ltd vs tib development bank 2020 tzhccomd 2032 8 september 2020

active packaging t ltd vs tib development bank 2020 tzhccomd 2032 8 september 2020

The plaintiff breached the credit facility agreement by removing secured equipment without written approval, violating section 6.02(f) of the agreement. Even absent this breach, the contract was frustrated by operation of law when the defendant became a development bank, legally barred from issuing overdraft facilities. Therefore, the defendant did not breach the contract, and the plaintiff is not entitled to the claimed reliefs.

Citation
active packaging t ltd vs tib development bank 2020 tzhccomd 2032 8 september 2020
Parties
Plaintiff: Active Packaging (T) Limited; Defendant: TIB Development Bank
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
8 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Case / Judgment
Outcome
Suit dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Frustration of Contract, Specific Performance, Damages, Banking Regulation
Source Language
English
Contract Law Banking Law Breach of Contract Frustration of Contract Specific Performance Damages Banking Regulation

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Active Packaging (T) Limited

Plaintiff

TIB Development Bank

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Case / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached the terms and conditions of the credit facility agreement
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff suffered loss due to breach and to what extent
  3. 3 To what reliefs are the parties entitled

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff breached the credit facility agreement by removing secured equipment without written approval, violating section 6.02(f) of the agreement. Even absent this breach, the contract was frustrated by operation of law when the defendant became a development bank, legally barred from issuing overdraft facilities. Therefore, the defendant did not breach the contract, and the plaintiff is not entitled to the claimed reliefs.

Court Disposition

Suit dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claims dismissed
  • Plaintiff to pay costs