fabec investment limited vs mes international financial services pty limited another 2023 tzhccomd 33 23 february 2023

fabec investment limited vs mes international financial services pty limited another 2023 tzhccomd 33 23 february 2023

The Defendants fundamentally breached the Lease Agreement by failing to deliver the full set of agreed equipment within the stipulated time, delivering only two out of three machines, and delivering equipment of a different brand, which failed to meet contractual performance standards. The Plaintiff proved, on a balance of probabilities, that these breaches caused specific and general damages, which were strictly pleaded and proved. The Defendants' counter-allegations were unsupported by evidence. The Plaintiff is entitled to specific and general damages, and the Defendants are jointly and severally liable.

Citation
fabec investment limited vs mes international financial services pty limited another 2023 tzhccomd 33 23 february 2023
Parties
Plaintiff: Fabec Investment Limited; 1st Defendant: MES International Financial Services (Pty) Ltd; 2nd Defendant: MES Mine Services Tanzania Ltd
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
23 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Commercial Case / Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiff
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Damages, Lease Agreements, Mitigation of Loss, Evidence, Remedies
Source Language
English
Contract Law Commercial Law Breach of Contract Damages Lease Agreements Mitigation of Loss Evidence Remedies

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fabec Investment Limited

Plaintiff

MES International Financial Services (Pty) Ltd

1st Defendant

MES Mine Services Tanzania Ltd

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Case / Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants breached the contract
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff suffered damages
  3. 3 What reliefs are the parties entitled to

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants fundamentally breached the Lease Agreement by failing to deliver the full set of agreed equipment within the stipulated time, delivering only two out of three machines, and delivering equipment of a different brand, which failed to meet contractual performance standards. The Plaintiff proved, on a balance of probabilities, that these breaches caused specific and general damages, which were strictly pleaded and proved. The Defendants' counter-allegations were unsupported by evidence. The Plaintiff is entitled to specific and general damages, and the Defendants are jointly and severally liable.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiff

Orders

  • Declaration that the Defendants fundamentally breached the Lease Agreement.
  • Declaration that the Notice of Cancellation dated 6 June 2022 was unlawful.