edwin sambala vs national microfinance bank ltd and another 2015 tzhclandd 2 24 april 2015

edwin sambala vs national microfinance bank ltd and another 2015 tzhclandd 2 24 april 2015

The plaintiff guaranteed a loan of T.Shs.5,000,000/=, not T.Shs.30,000,000/=, and the property was validly used as collateral. The proclamation of sale was a justified contractual remedy following default, and did not constitute defamation as it was true and privileged. The plaintiff failed to prove any defamatory imputation or entitlement to damages.

Citation
edwin sambala vs national microfinance bank ltd and another 2015 tzhclandd 2 24 april 2015
Parties
Plaintiff: Edwin Sambala; 1st Defendant: National Microfinance Bank Ltd.; 2nd Defendant: MEM Auctioneers & General Brokers Ltd.
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
24 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil (land/defamation) / Judgment
Outcome
Suit dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Defamation by Proclamation of Sale, Guarantor Liability, Mortgage Enforcement, General Damages
Source Language
English
Defamation Banking Law Land Law Defamation by Proclamation of Sale Guarantor Liability Mortgage Enforcement General Damages

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edwin Sambala

Plaintiff

National Microfinance Bank Ltd.

1st Defendant

MEM Auctioneers & General Brokers Ltd.

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (land/defamation) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether property of Plot No. 161 Block IB Lugalo Area, Iringa Municipality was collateral for a loan of T.Shs.5,000,000/= secured from the 1st defendant.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff guaranteed one Nolasco Hyera to secure a loan of T.Shs.5,000,000/= from the 1st defendant.
  3. 3 Whether the defendants defamed the plaintiff.

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff guaranteed a loan of T.Shs.5,000,000/=, not T.Shs.30,000,000/=, and the property was validly used as collateral. The proclamation of sale was a justified contractual remedy following default, and did not constitute defamation as it was true and privileged. The plaintiff failed to prove any defamatory imputation or entitlement to damages.

Court Disposition

Suit dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claim for general damages is dismissed.
  • Plaintiff's claim for permanent injunction is dismissed.