basic element limited vs national bank of commercial limited others 2013 tzhc 2032 3 december 2013

basic element limited vs national bank of commercial limited others 2013 tzhc 2032 3 december 2013

The 1st Defendant committed fraudulent misrepresentation by actively concealing the 2009 valuation report and presenting the outdated 2007 report to induce the Plaintiff to pay a higher price. The Plaintiff relied on these misrepresentations and suffered loss. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants, though agents of the 1st Defendant during the sale, did not actively misrepresent and are not liable.

Citation
basic element limited vs national bank of commercial limited others 2013 tzhc 2032 3 december 2013
Parties
Plaintiff: Basic Element Limited; 1st Defendant: National Bank of Commerce Limited; 2nd Defendant: Silvanus Benedict Mlola t/a Kisarika Malimi & Mlola (Advocates); 3rd Defendant: Seni Songwe Malimi t/a Kisarika Malimi & Mlola (Advocates)
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
3 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff against 1st Defendant; claim against 2nd and 3rd Defendants dismissed.
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Agency, Receivership, Sale of Mortgaged Property, Damages
Source Language
English
Contract Law Company Law Property Law Banking Law Fraudulent Misrepresentation Agency Receivership Sale of Mortgaged Property +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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Basic Element Limited

Plaintiff

National Bank of Commerce Limited

1st Defendant

Silvanus Benedict Mlola t/a Kisarika Malimi & Mlola (Advocates)

2nd Defendant

Seni Songwe Malimi t/a Kisarika Malimi & Mlola (Advocates)

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2nd and 3rd Defendants were agents of the 1st Defendant in the disposal of the property
  2. 2 Whether the Credit Facility Letter dated 15th January 2010 was part and parcel of the Sale Agreement
  3. 3 Whether the Defendants made fraudulent misrepresentations to the Plaintiff in the process of selling the Mill Plant

Ratio Decidendi

The 1st Defendant committed fraudulent misrepresentation by actively concealing the 2009 valuation report and presenting the outdated 2007 report to induce the Plaintiff to pay a higher price. The Plaintiff relied on these misrepresentations and suffered loss. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants, though agents of the 1st Defendant during the sale, did not actively misrepresent and are not liable.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiff against 1st Defendant; claim against 2nd and 3rd Defendants dismissed.

Orders

  • Declaration that 1st Defendant committed fraudulent misrepresentation as regards the value of the suit premises at the time of sale.
  • 1st Defendant to refund Tshs. 1,000,000,000/= to Plaintiff, together with commercial interest accrued thereon.