dimond trust bank t ltd vs prime farms ltd others 2019 tzhccomd 154 26 september 2019

dimond trust bank t ltd vs prime farms ltd others 2019 tzhccomd 154 26 september 2019

The plaintiff proved the existence of the credit facilities agreement, the defendants' default in repayment, and entitlement to the claimed amount, interest, and costs. The defendants were duly served but failed to appear or defend, justifying judgment for the plaintiff.

Citation
dimond trust bank t ltd vs prime farms ltd others 2019 tzhccomd 154 26 september 2019
Parties
Plaintiff: Diamond Trust Bank Tanzania Ltd; 1st Defendant: Prime Farms Ltd; 2nd Defendant: Nishat Naushad Muui Alibhai (also otherwise known as Nishat Mulji); 3rd Defendant: Praful Mogal; 4th Defendant: Shahin Kassam
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
26 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Commercial Case / Default Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff
Legal Topics
Credit Facilities, Loan Default, Enforcement of Security, Personal Guarantee, Mortgage, Debenture
Source Language
English
Banking Law Contract Law Credit Facilities Loan Default Enforcement of Security Personal Guarantee Mortgage Debenture

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Diamond Trust Bank Tanzania Ltd

Plaintiff

Prime Farms Ltd

1st Defendant

Nishat Naushad Muui Alibhai (also otherwise known as Nishat Mulji)

2nd Defendant

Praful Mogal

3rd Defendant

Shahin Kassam

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Case / Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a Credit Facilities Agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants
  2. 2 Whether there was a breach of agreement
  3. 3 What reliefs the parties are entitled to

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff proved the existence of the credit facilities agreement, the defendants' default in repayment, and entitlement to the claimed amount, interest, and costs. The defendants were duly served but failed to appear or defend, justifying judgment for the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff

Orders

  • Judgment in favour of the plaintiff jointly and severally against all defendants for Tzs. 298,830,837.26
  • Interest at 19% per annum from 7th March, 2019 until judgment or sooner payment