20171027 TZHC Dar es Salaam

20171027 TZHC Dar es Salaam

The plaintiff failed to prove that the Specimen Signature Card was forged or that the withdrawal mandate was 'Two to sign'; no evidence established fraud or conspiracy between the first and second defendants; the plaintiff, as a co-director and guarantor, is jointly and severally liable for the overdraft, but is entitled to a grace period for repayment and a refund from the first defendant for the amount withdrawn without his consent.

Citation
20171027 TZHC Dar es Salaam
Parties
Plaintiff: Mrisho Ismail Mwasa; 1st Defendant: Bashiri Issa Murashani; 2nd Defendant: International Commercial Bank (Tanzania) Limited; 3rd Defendant: Murashani Investment Company Limited
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
27 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claims against the second defendant dismissed; counter-claim by second defendant allowed; plaintiff granted grace period for repayment; first defendant ordered to refund plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Overdraft Facility, Fraud, Forgery, Conspiracy, Guarantee, Joint and Several Liability, Due Diligence, Rescheduling of Debt, Refund, Mortgage Execution
Source Language
English
Banking Law Contract Law Company Law Tort Law Overdraft Facility Fraud Forgery Conspiracy +6 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrisho Ismail Mwasa

Plaintiff

Bashiri Issa Murashani

1st Defendant

International Commercial Bank (Tanzania) Limited

2nd Defendant

Murashani Investment Company Limited

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the withdrawal of Tshs 100,000,000 by the first defendant followed proper bank procedures
  2. 2 Whether the Specimen Signature Card for withdrawal mandate was genuine
  3. 3 Whether the second defendant conducted due diligence before releasing the loan facility

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to prove that the Specimen Signature Card was forged or that the withdrawal mandate was 'Two to sign'; no evidence established fraud or conspiracy between the first and second defendants; the plaintiff, as a co-director and guarantor, is jointly and severally liable for the overdraft, but is entitled to a grace period for repayment and a refund from the first defendant for the amount withdrawn without his consent.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claims against the second defendant dismissed; counter-claim by second defendant allowed; plaintiff granted grace period for repayment; first defendant ordered to refund plaintiff.

Orders

  • Plaintiff to repay the outstanding overdraft to the second defendant within three years from the date of judgment; failing which, the bank may execute the mortgage.
  • First defendant to refund the plaintiff Tshs 100,000,000 plus bank interest at 24%.