t postal bank ltd vs dn bahram co ltd 4 others 2010 tzhccomd 10 18 october 2010

t postal bank ltd vs dn bahram co ltd 4 others 2010 tzhccomd 10 18 october 2010

Respondents failed to show sufficient cause to prevent execution; prior opportunities to pay by installments were not honored; allegations of fraud are unsubstantiated, improperly raised at execution stage, and do not affect the enforceability of the decrees or the liability of the guarantors.

Citation
t postal bank ltd vs dn bahram co ltd 4 others 2010 tzhccomd 10 18 october 2010
Parties
Applicant/decree Holder: Tanzania Postal Bank; 1st Respondent/judgment Debtor: D.N. Bahram and Co. Ltd; 2nd Respondent/judgment Debtor: Dadrahnan Nurmohamed Bahram; 3rd Respondent/judgment Debtor: Merbibi Dadrahman Bahram; 4th Respondent/judgment Debtor: Mathew Thomas Mbata; 5th Respondent/judgment Debtor: Joseph Simbiligunga Mwachullah
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
18 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Commercial Case / Execution Application Ruling
Outcome
application granted
Legal Topics
Execution of Decrees, Loan Recovery, Guarantee Liability, Fraud Allegations, Mortgage Enforcement
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Banking Law Contract Law Execution of Decrees Loan Recovery Guarantee Liability Fraud Allegations Mortgage Enforcement

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tanzania Postal Bank

Applicant/decree Holder

D.N. Bahram and Co. Ltd

1st Respondent/judgment Debtor

Dadrahnan Nurmohamed Bahram

2nd Respondent/judgment Debtor

Merbibi Dadrahman Bahram

3rd Respondent/judgment Debtor

Mathew Thomas Mbata

4th Respondent/judgment Debtor

Joseph Simbiligunga Mwachullah

5th Respondent/judgment Debtor

Procedural Posture

Commercial Case / Execution Application Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents have shown cause why the decrees should not be executed
  2. 2 Whether the 4th and 5th respondents are liable as guarantors despite allegations of fraud
  3. 3 Whether allegations of fraud at execution stage can prevent execution

Ratio Decidendi

Respondents failed to show sufficient cause to prevent execution; prior opportunities to pay by installments were not honored; allegations of fraud are unsubstantiated, improperly raised at execution stage, and do not affect the enforceability of the decrees or the liability of the guarantors.

Court Disposition

application granted

Orders

  • Execution of judgments and decrees dated 19/11/2004 and 21/03/2005 against all respondents to proceed
  • Applicant awarded costs of the application