hash energy tanzania ltd vs riva oils t ltd others 2019 tzhccomd 177 9 august 2019

hash energy tanzania ltd vs riva oils t ltd others 2019 tzhccomd 177 9 august 2019

The 1st defendant failed to deliver petroleum products paid for by the plaintiff, and failed to remit taxes resulting in auction of goods by TRA. The plaintiff proved entitlement to refund for goods not supplied and for auctioned gas oil. The alleged conspiracy and omitted payments were not proven. Only the 2nd defendant acknowledged the debt, and the deposit of the title deed was not proper as no board resolution existed. Reliefs granted include refund, interest, and costs, but not general damages or sale of property.

Citation
hash energy tanzania ltd vs riva oils t ltd others 2019 tzhccomd 177 9 august 2019
Parties
Plaintiff: Hash Energy Tanzania Limited; 1st Defendant: Riva Oils (T) Limited; 2nd Defendant: Timothy Major Magege; 3rd Defendant: Paul Major Magege; 4th Defendant: Moses Liyumba (Administrator of the Estate of the late Amatus Liyumba)
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
9 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Commercial Case / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff in part
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Refund of Purchase Price, Supply of Goods, Interest, Guarantee, Acknowledgment of Debt, Lien, Damages
Source Language
English
Contract Law Commercial Law Breach of Contract Refund of Purchase Price Supply of Goods Interest Guarantee Acknowledgment of Debt +2 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hash Energy Tanzania Limited

Plaintiff

Riva Oils (T) Limited

1st Defendant

Timothy Major Magege

2nd Defendant

Paul Major Magege

3rd Defendant

Moses Liyumba (Administrator of the Estate of the late Amatus Liyumba)

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Case / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st defendant owes the plaintiff TZS 1,224,908,084.00 for goods paid but not supplied
  2. 2 Whether the defendants owe the plaintiff TZS 2,649,840,000.00 for alleged conspiracy and omission to record payment
  3. 3 Whether the 1st defendant is liable to refund TZS 523,194,937.00 for gas oil seized and auctioned by TRA

Ratio Decidendi

The 1st defendant failed to deliver petroleum products paid for by the plaintiff, and failed to remit taxes resulting in auction of goods by TRA. The plaintiff proved entitlement to refund for goods not supplied and for auctioned gas oil. The alleged conspiracy and omitted payments were not proven. Only the 2nd defendant acknowledged the debt, and the deposit of the title deed was not proper as no board resolution existed. Reliefs granted include refund, interest, and costs, but not general damages or sale of property.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff in part

Orders

  • 1st, 2nd, and 3rd defendants to jointly and severally pay plaintiff TZS 1,224,908,084.00 for goods paid but not supplied
  • 1st, 2nd, and 3rd defendants to jointly and severally pay plaintiff TZS 523,194,937.00 for gas oil seized and auctioned by TRA