Alliance Finance Corporation Ltd vs Sasn Auto Garage Company Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (DODOMA DISTRICT REGISTRY) AT DODOMA CIVIL CASE NO. 15 OF 2022 ALLIANCE FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED.................. PLAINTIFF VERSUS SASN AUTO GARAGE COMPANY LIMITED.......................... DEFENDANT EX-PARTE JUDGMENT Date of the Order: 23/4/2024 Date of the Judgment: 2/7/2024 KHALFAN, J. The plaintiff filed the instant suit against the defendant claiming against it an assortment of reliefs such as, declaration that the defendant breached the contract, an order for payment of TZS 420,954,984/= being principal sum and interest as of July 2022, payment of general damages, costs of the suit and any other relief this court deems fit and just to grant. It is on record that the defendant duly filed its written statement of defence in which it disputed the plaintiff's claim and also raised a counter claim against the plaintiff for payment of TZS 300,000,000/= being loss of business, declaration that the plaintiff illegally impounded the defendant's motor vehicles, general damages at the sum of TZS 100,000,000/= and costs for the counter claim. The defendant did not enter appearance after filing its written statement of defence hence the counter claim was dismissed and the main case was ordered to proceed ex parte. The matter was heard by the plaintiff filing witness statement in which Bazil Mchihiye testified as the sole witness for the plaintiff. He testified that on 16/4/2021, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into loan agreement in which the plaintiff advanced to the defendant a loan at the tune of TZS 413,390,085/=. He tendered the loan application form as exhibit Pl. He testified that the purpose of the loan was for the defendant to purchase two motor vehicles make TATA NOVUS V3T6F with registration No. T 275 DVM and T 276 DVM. Two motor vehicle registration cards were tendered collectively as exhibit P3. He maintained that due to inconsistencies in servicing the loan, parties entered into new agreement dated 30/9/2021 in which the outstanding amount was TZS 420,954,978/=. He tendered the said agreement as exhibit P2. PW1 testified further that, the defendant did not pay the amount as agreed and the plaintiff issued a demand notice but the defendant did not pay the required amount. The demand notice dated 7/6/2022 was tendered 2 and admitted as exhibit P5. PW1 claimed that the total outstanding amount is TZS 420,954,978/=. He tendered the bank statement running from 1/1/2017 to 31/7/2022 as exhibit P6. He therefore prayed for the court to enter judgment against the defendant for the payment of the said sum, general damages, punitive damages as well as costs of the suit. Having gone through the plaintiff's evidence there are three issues for my determination, the first issue is whether there is an agreement between the parties for payment of sum of TZS 420,954,978/=. The second issued is whether the defendant breached the said agreement and finally what reliefs are parties entitled. Starting with the first issue, going by the evidence on record, the relationship between the parties commenced as lender and borrower in which the plaintiff advanced credit facility to the defendant. This is evidenced by the loan agreement which was executed on 25/10/2020. It shows that the loan amount which the defendant applied from the plaintiff as per exhibit Pl was TZS 297,040,000/=. According to exhibit P2, the said loan was to be repaid within 36 months at the monthly instalments of TZS 11,498,336/=. 3 Since the defendant did not pay the said amount as agreed, parties executed debt reschedule agreement on 30/9/2021 (exhibit P4) by that time, the outstanding loan (principal sum and interest) was TZS 413,940,085/=. With this new agreement, the defendant was required to pay the sum of TZS 11,693,194/= every fifth day of each month until the whole amount was liquidated. Therefore, the first issue is answered in affirmative. Coming to the second issue, exhibit P4 speaks in no ambiguous terms that the defendant was required to pay a sum of TZS 413,940,085/= payable at monthly instalment of TZS 11,693,194/= every fifth day of each month until the whole amount was liquidated. There is no evidence from the defendant that it paid any of the stated sum. Thus, I am of the settled view that the defendant breached the agreement namely exhibit P4 by not paying the installments. Coming to the last issue regarding the reliefs, PW1 asked the court to grant punitive damages against the defendant. But having gone through plaint, the plaintiff neither pleaded nor specify the particulars for the punitive damages hence the relief for punitive damages is rejected. As to the general damages, I find that since the defendant withheld the plaintiff's money for several years without paying the same, the plaintiff being a financial institution was deprived of chance to invest the money. Hence, I find that TZS 20,000,000/= will meet the ends of justice. In upshot, judgment is entered against the defendant as follows: 1. The defendant is declared to have breached the contract. 2. The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of TZS 413,940,085/=. 3. The defendant is ordered to pay TZS 20,000,000/= as general damages. 4. The defendant to pay costs of this suit. It is so ordered. Dated at Dodoma this 2nd July 2024. F. R. KHALFAN JUDGE 2/7/2024 5