mogas tanzania limited v mexons energy limited another 2022 tzhccomd 99 22 april 2022

mogas tanzania limited v mexons energy limited another 2022 tzhccomd 99 22 april 2022

Plaintiff failed to prove breach of dealership agreement by 1st defendant, failed to substantiate dumping allegations, and failed to prove delivery of products on credit exceeding agreed limit. Plaintiff did not repair petrol station as required, and evidence did not support collusion between defendants. All claims were not strictly proved on balance of probabilities.

Citation
mogas tanzania limited v mexons energy limited another 2022 tzhccomd 99 22 april 2022
Parties
Plaintiff: MOGAS TANZANIA LIMITED; 1st Defendant: MEXONS ENERGY LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: ABDALLAH ALLY SELEMANI t/a OTTAWA ENTERPRISES (1987) LTD
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
22 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Commercial Case / Final Judgment
Outcome
suit dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Lease Agreement, Dealership Agreement, Mortgage, Collusion, Credit Supply, Sale of Mortgaged Property
Source Language
English
Contract Law Commercial Law Breach of Contract Lease Agreement Dealership Agreement Mortgage Collusion Credit Supply +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MOGAS TANZANIA LIMITED

Plaintiff

MEXONS ENERGY LIMITED

1st Defendant

ABDALLAH ALLY SELEMANI t/a OTTAWA ENTERPRISES (1987) LTD

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Case / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st defendant is in breach of the dealership agreement
  2. 2 Whether 1st defendant owes the plaintiff TZS.186,957,366 on account of credit supplies
  3. 3 Whether the defendants colluded and executed sale agreement unlawfully transferring the leased property

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff failed to prove breach of dealership agreement by 1st defendant, failed to substantiate dumping allegations, and failed to prove delivery of products on credit exceeding agreed limit. Plaintiff did not repair petrol station as required, and evidence did not support collusion between defendants. All claims were not strictly proved on balance of probabilities.

Court Disposition

suit dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Suit dismissed with costs to defendants