eco bank tanzania limited v zeds logistics limited 2022 tzhccomd 104 29 april 2022

eco bank tanzania limited v zeds logistics limited 2022 tzhccomd 104 29 april 2022

The 1st defendant breached the credit facility agreement by failing to repay the loan as agreed. The plaintiff was contractually entitled to confiscate and sell the secured assets without notice upon default, as stipulated in the debenture and facility agreement. The counterclaim for damages fails as there was no evidence of unlawful conduct by the plaintiff or frustration of the contract beyond the agreed terms.

Citation
eco bank tanzania limited v zeds logistics limited 2022 tzhccomd 104 29 april 2022
Parties
Plaintiff: ECOBANK TANZANIA LIMITED; 1st Defendant: ZEDS LOGISTIC LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: ZULFIKAR HUSSEIN DEWJI; 3rd Defendant: ABBAS ZULFIKAR DEWJI
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
29 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Commercial Case / Judgement
Outcome
Judgement for the plaintiff; counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Loan Default, Asset Financing, Breach of Contract, Enforcement of Security, Personal Guarantee, Counterclaim for Damages
Source Language
English
Contract Law Banking Law Commercial Law Loan Default Asset Financing Breach of Contract Enforcement of Security Personal Guarantee +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ECOBANK TANZANIA LIMITED

Plaintiff

ZEDS LOGISTIC LIMITED

1st Defendant

ZULFIKAR HUSSEIN DEWJI

2nd Defendant

ABBAS ZULFIKAR DEWJI

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Case / Judgement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was breach of the facility agreements between the parties and if so, by who?
  2. 2 Whether the confiscation of 1st defendant's motor vehicles was justified?
  3. 3 To what reliefs parties are entitled to?

Ratio Decidendi

The 1st defendant breached the credit facility agreement by failing to repay the loan as agreed. The plaintiff was contractually entitled to confiscate and sell the secured assets without notice upon default, as stipulated in the debenture and facility agreement. The counterclaim for damages fails as there was no evidence of unlawful conduct by the plaintiff or frustration of the contract beyond the agreed terms.

Court Disposition

Judgement for the plaintiff; counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • Declaration that defendants breached the credit facility and guarantees.
  • Defendants to pay TZS 705,091,747 to plaintiff.