grofin african fund ltd vs h furniture and electroniucs ltd and others 2020 tzhccomd 3 11 march 2020

grofin african fund ltd vs h furniture and electroniucs ltd and others 2020 tzhccomd 3 11 march 2020

The plaintiff failed to prove it was a duly licensed financial institution authorized to advance loans and charge interest. The loan agreement was illegal and void. No credible evidence was produced to show the amount advanced or repaid. The plaintiff failed to prove its case on the balance of probabilities.

Citation
grofin african fund ltd vs h furniture and electroniucs ltd and others 2020 tzhccomd 3 11 march 2020
Parties
Plaintiff: Grofin Africa Fund Limited; 1st Defendant: II. Furniture and Electronics Limited; 2nd Defendant: Honest John Make; 3rd Defendant: Linda Simonimoshi; 4th Defendant: Honest John Make, Trustee of Henry Honest Make
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
11 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Cause / Final Judgment
Outcome
Suit dismissed
Legal Topics
Loan Agreements, Financial Institution Licensing, Guarantees, Illegality of Contract
Source Language
English
Contract Law Banking Law Commercial Law Loan Agreements Financial Institution Licensing Guarantees Illegality of Contract

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grofin Africa Fund Limited

Plaintiff

II. Furniture and Electronics Limited

1st Defendant

Honest John Make

2nd Defendant

Linda Simonimoshi

3rd Defendant

Honest John Make, Trustee of Henry Honest Make

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Cause / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the term loan facility agreement dated 29th October 2012 has any legal effect
  2. 2 Whether the defendants are in breach of term loan facility agreement dated 29th October 2012
  3. 3 Whether at the time the loan was granted to the 1st defendant by the plaintiff, the plaintiff was duly licensed as a financial institution capable of charging interests on loan

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to prove it was a duly licensed financial institution authorized to advance loans and charge interest. The loan agreement was illegal and void. No credible evidence was produced to show the amount advanced or repaid. The plaintiff failed to prove its case on the balance of probabilities.

Court Disposition

Suit dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claims dismissed
  • No relief granted to any party