ms i and m bank t ltd vs royal procument co ltd and others 2020 tzhccomd 2023 27 july 2020

ms i and m bank t ltd vs royal procument co ltd and others 2020 tzhccomd 2023 27 july 2020

The plaintiff failed to provide sufficient and authentic evidence to prove the outstanding amount and that the defendants had not discharged their obligations under the loan agreement. The manually prepared document indicating the claimed outstanding amount was unreliable, and no written demands or proof of sale...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
ms i and m bank t ltd vs royal procument co ltd and others 2020 tzhccomd 2023 27 july 2020
Parties
Plaintiff: M/S I & M Bank (T) Limited; 1st Defendant: Royal Procurement Company Limited; 2nd Defendant: Taher Hakimyddin Jivajee; 3rd Defendant: Ummehani Taher Jivajee
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
27 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Case / Judgment
Outcome
case dismissed
Legal Topics
Loan Facility Agreement, Guarantee and Indemnity, Evidence Requirements, Burden of Proof
Source Language
english
Banking Law Contract Law Loan Facility Agreement Guarantee and Indemnity Evidence Requirements Burden of Proof

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 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M/S I & M Bank (T) Limited

Plaintiff

Royal Procurement Company Limited

1st Defendant

Taher Hakimyddin Jivajee

2nd Defendant

Ummehani Taher Jivajee

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Case / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants discharged their obligations under the loan agreement dated 17th January 2014
  2. 2 What reliefs the parties are entitled to

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to provide sufficient and authentic evidence to prove the outstanding amount and that the defendants had not discharged their obligations under the loan agreement. The manually prepared document indicating the claimed outstanding amount was unreliable, and no written demands or proof of sale proceeds were tendered as required.

Court Disposition

case dismissed