hadija hemed vs lugano angetile mwakyosi jengela and 4 others 2021 tzhclandd 832 17 november 2021

hadija hemed vs lugano angetile mwakyosi jengela and 4 others 2021 tzhclandd 832 17 november 2021

The suit property was solely owned by the 4th defendant, acquired before marriage, and not occupied by the plaintiff or her co-wife at the time of mortgage; the bank relied on a valid affidavit and conducted due diligence; thus, the mortgage and subsequent auction were lawful and no spousal consent was required.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
hadija hemed vs lugano angetile mwakyosi jengela and 4 others 2021 tzhclandd 832 17 november 2021
Parties
Plaintiff: Hadija Hemed; 1st Defendant: Lugano Angetile Mwakyosi Jengela; 2nd Defendant: Ludemi Trading Co. Limited; 3rd Defendant: Equity Bank (Tanzania) Limited; 4th Defendant: Ali Hamad Hamad; 5th Defendant: Khatib Said Haji
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
17 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Judgment
Outcome
Suit dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Matrimonial Property, Mortgage Validity, Spousal Consent, Public Auction, Fraud, Property Rights
Source Language
english
Land Law Family Law Banking Law Matrimonial Property Mortgage Validity Spousal Consent Public Auction Fraud +1 more

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Hadija Hemed

Plaintiff

Lugano Angetile Mwakyosi Jengela

1st Defendant

Ludemi Trading Co. Limited

2nd Defendant

Equity Bank (Tanzania) Limited

3rd Defendant

Ali Hamad Hamad

4th Defendant

Khatib Said Haji

5th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land Case / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a lawful mortgage of the suit property
  2. 2 Whether the suit property was matrimonial property requiring spousal consent for mortgage
  3. 3 Whether the auction and sale of the suit property was lawful

Ratio Decidendi

The suit property was solely owned by the 4th defendant, acquired before marriage, and not occupied by the plaintiff or her co-wife at the time of mortgage; the bank relied on a valid affidavit and conducted due diligence; thus, the mortgage and subsequent auction were lawful and no spousal consent was required.

Court Disposition

Suit dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Suit dismissed
  • Plaintiff to pay costs