mackriman trust fund ltd vs national bank of commerce ltd and 2 others 2020 tzhclandd 2205 27 april 2020

mackriman trust fund ltd vs national bank of commerce ltd and 2 others 2020 tzhclandd 2205 27 april 2020

The plaintiff, through her director who was also a director of the 2nd defendant, had full knowledge and consented to the extension of the overdraft facility. The absence of a formal notice does not discharge the plaintiff from liability as guarantor. The mortgage property secures the extended facility and the outstanding amount. The intended sale by the 1st and 3rd defendants is lawful.

Citation
mackriman trust fund ltd vs national bank of commerce ltd and 2 others 2020 tzhclandd 2205 27 april 2020
Parties
Plaintiff: Mackriman Trust Fund Ltd; 1st Defendant: National Bank of Commerce Ltd; 2nd Defendant: Lesheya Investment Co. Ltd; 3rd Defendant: Sadock Dotto Magai
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
27 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Final Judgment
Outcome
suit dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Guarantee, Mortgage, Extension of Facility, Liability of Guarantor, Injunction, Damages
Source Language
English
Contract Law Banking Law Land Law Guarantee Mortgage Extension of Facility Liability of Guarantor Injunction +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mackriman Trust Fund Ltd

Plaintiff

National Bank of Commerce Ltd

1st Defendant

Lesheya Investment Co. Ltd

2nd Defendant

Sadock Dotto Magai

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land Case / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the mortgage deed executed by the plaintiff covered the extension of overdraft facility granted to the 2nd defendant by the 1st defendant in the year 2000
  2. 2 If so, whether the plaintiff's mortgage property secured an amount of Tshs 400,000,000/- only
  3. 3 Whether the 1st and 3rd defendants' intended sale of mortgaged property is lawful

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff, through her director who was also a director of the 2nd defendant, had full knowledge and consented to the extension of the overdraft facility. The absence of a formal notice does not discharge the plaintiff from liability as guarantor. The mortgage property secures the extended facility and the outstanding amount. The intended sale by the 1st and 3rd defendants is lawful.

Court Disposition

suit dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The 1st defendant may proceed with recovery process including sale of mortgaged property as prescribed by law.
  • Plaintiff's claims for declaratory orders, injunction, damages, and release from liability are denied.