joseph kahungwa vs agricultural inputs trust fund others 2021 tzca 325 23 july 2021

joseph kahungwa vs agricultural inputs trust fund others 2021 tzca 325 23 july 2021

The respondents complied with all statutory and contractual requirements for notice and sale of the mortgaged property; the appellant failed to prove any breach or irregularity, and the sale price was within statutory limits. The trial court's order for refund of surplus proceeds was proper under the law.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
joseph kahungwa vs agricultural inputs trust fund others 2021 tzca 325 23 july 2021
Parties
Appellant: Joseph Kahungwa; 1st Respondent: Agricultural Inputs Trust Fund; 2nd Respondent: Ubapa Ltd & Tribunal Broker; 3rd Respondent: Dorah Jama
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
23 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Mortgage Enforcement, Public Auction, Notice Requirements, Duty of Care in Sale of Mortgaged Property, Burden of Proof, Loan Agreements
Source Language
english
Property Law Banking Law Civil Procedure Mortgage Enforcement Public Auction Notice Requirements Duty of Care in Sale of Mortgaged Property Burden of Proof +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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Kahungwa

Appellant

Agricultural Inputs Trust Fund

1st Respondent

Ubapa Ltd & Tribunal Broker

2nd Respondent

Dorah Jama

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the auction sale of the mortgaged property complied with substantive and procedural law
  2. 2 Whether proper notice of default was served on the appellant
  3. 3 Whether the respondents breached the terms of the loan agreement and mortgage deed

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents complied with all statutory and contractual requirements for notice and sale of the mortgaged property; the appellant failed to prove any breach or irregularity, and the sale price was within statutory limits. The trial court's order for refund of surplus proceeds was proper under the law.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed in its entirety with costs.