finca microfinance bank vs peter makanji 2022 tzhc 86 27 january 2022

finca microfinance bank vs peter makanji 2022 tzhc 86 27 january 2022

Respondent proved ownership of confiscated properties and entitlement to compensation. Appellant failed to conduct due diligence and relied on insufficient evidence. Special damages were not strictly proved; only value of properties was compensable. General damages reduced to TZS 500,000/= as justified by circumstances.

Citation
finca microfinance bank vs peter makanji 2022 tzhc 86 27 january 2022
Parties
Appellant: FINCA Microfinance Bank; Respondent: Peter Makanji
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
27 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal partly allowed, partly dismissed
Legal Topics
Damages, Unlawful Confiscation, Loan Recovery, Compensation, General Damages, Special Damages
Source Language
English
Civil Law Tort Law Banking Law Damages Unlawful Confiscation Loan Recovery Compensation General Damages +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FINCA Microfinance Bank

Appellant

Peter Makanji

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was the true owner of the confiscated properties
  2. 2 Whether the appellant conducted due diligence prior to confiscation
  3. 3 Whether special damages were properly pleaded and proved

Ratio Decidendi

Respondent proved ownership of confiscated properties and entitlement to compensation. Appellant failed to conduct due diligence and relied on insufficient evidence. Special damages were not strictly proved; only value of properties was compensable. General damages reduced to TZS 500,000/= as justified by circumstances.

Court Disposition

appeal partly allowed, partly dismissed

Orders

  • Respondent awarded TZS 55,303,000/= as compensation for value of confiscated properties
  • Respondent awarded TZS 500,000/= as general damages