mappena investment co ltd another vs the development bank ltd another 2023 tzhc 22424 1 november 2023

mappena investment co ltd another vs the development bank ltd another 2023 tzhc 22424 1 november 2023

The 1st defendant breached the credit facility agreement by imposing interest and penalties before the expiry of the agreed grace period and by failing to properly account for payments made by the 1st plaintiff. The defendant's calculations of the outstanding debt were unlawful and not substantiated. As a result,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
mappena investment co ltd another vs the development bank ltd another 2023 tzhc 22424 1 november 2023
Parties
Plaintiff: Mapenna Investment Co. Ltd; Plaintiff: Deogtratius Modest Mtui (as Administrator of the Estate of the Late Modest Urban Mtui); Defendant: The Development Bank Ltd; Defendant: The Attorney General
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
1 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Judgment
Outcome
Suit partly allowed
Legal Topics
Loan Agreements, Breach of Contract, Calculation of Debt, Damages, Recovery Measures, Banking Practices
Source Language
english
Banking Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Loan Agreements Breach of Contract Calculation of Debt Damages Recovery Measures +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mapenna Investment Co. Ltd

Plaintiff

Deogtratius Modest Mtui (as Administrator of the Estate of the Late Modest Urban Mtui)

Plaintiff

The Development Bank Ltd

Defendant

The Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What were the terms of the service facility agreement as amended?
  2. 2 Whether the terms were breached?
  3. 3 Whether there were miscalculations of the outstanding debt?

Ratio Decidendi

The 1st defendant breached the credit facility agreement by imposing interest and penalties before the expiry of the agreed grace period and by failing to properly account for payments made by the 1st plaintiff. The defendant's calculations of the outstanding debt were unlawful and not substantiated. As a result, the intended recovery measures, including auctioning of the plaintiff's properties, were not legally justified. The plaintiff is entitled to compensation for loss of profit due to closure of business caused by the defendant's actions.

Court Disposition

Suit partly allowed

Orders

  • The 1st defendant's calculations of the outstanding loan are unlawful.
  • The 1st defendant's alleged breach of TZS 1,068,032,094 against the 1st plaintiff was unlawful.