alan ernestine 3 others vs johnson lukaza another 2005 tzhccomd 23 25 march 2005

alan ernestine 3 others vs johnson lukaza another 2005 tzhccomd 23 25 march 2005

The transaction was a scam orchestrated by the 1st Defendant, who received US $93,290.60 from the Plaintiffs under fraudulent pretenses. The Plaintiffs are entitled to restitution of the sum paid, with interest, as the contract was voidable due to fraud. Specific damages were not proved and are not awarded.

Citation
alan ernestine 3 others vs johnson lukaza another 2005 tzhccomd 23 25 march 2005
Parties
Plaintiff: Alan Ernestine; Plaintiff: Roland Vicent; Plaintiff: Robert Simpson; Plaintiff: Mary-Alise Ernestine; Defendant: Johnson Lukaza; Defendant: Kernel Limited
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
25 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Commercial Case / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiffs
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Restitution, Voidable Contracts, Specific and General Damages, Interest on Decretal Sum
Source Language
English
Contract Law Commercial Law Fraud Fraudulent Misrepresentation Restitution Voidable Contracts Specific and General Damages Interest on Decretal Sum

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Ernestine

Plaintiff

Roland Vicent

Plaintiff

Robert Simpson

Plaintiff

Mary-Alise Ernestine

Plaintiff

Johnson Lukaza

Defendant

Kernel Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Case / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was an understanding between the parties for the Defendants to supply 200 kgms of gold and 2 kgms of diamonds to the Plaintiffs
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants received US $93,290.60 to facilitate the supply of gold and diamonds
  3. 3 Whether the Defendants failed to supply the said gold and diamonds

Ratio Decidendi

The transaction was a scam orchestrated by the 1st Defendant, who received US $93,290.60 from the Plaintiffs under fraudulent pretenses. The Plaintiffs are entitled to restitution of the sum paid, with interest, as the contract was voidable due to fraud. Specific damages were not proved and are not awarded.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiffs

Orders

  • Defendants to pay Plaintiffs US $93,290.60 as restitution
  • Interest at 21% per annum from date of payment to date of judgment