Commercial Case No 7954 of 2024 1 CRDB v Hillux
The suit is not time barred because the credit facility agreement constitutes a continuing breach, and the limitation period may be reset with each instance of breach until the expiry of the agreement term in September 2026.
- Citation
- Commercial Case No 7954 of 2024 1 CRDB v Hillux
- Parties
- Plaintiff: CRDB Bank PLC; 1st Defendant: Hilux Hotel Limited; 2nd Defendant: Emmanuel Kasheto
- Court
- TANZLII
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 1 January 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Commercial Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- Preliminary objection overruled
- Legal Topics
- Limitation of Actions, Credit Facility Agreements, Continuing Breach, Preliminary Objection
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
CRDB Bank PLC
Plaintiff
Hilux Hotel Limited
1st Defendant
Emmanuel Kasheto
2nd Defendant
Procedural Posture
Commercial Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit is time barred under the Law of Limitation Act
- 2 Whether the doctrine of continuing breach applies to the credit facility agreement
Ratio Decidendi
The suit is not time barred because the credit facility agreement constitutes a continuing breach, and the limitation period may be reset with each instance of breach until the expiry of the agreement term in September 2026.
Court Disposition
Preliminary objection overruled
Orders
- Costs to be in the main cause
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment