19880226 TZCA Dar es Salaam

19880226 TZCA Dar es Salaam

If the arbitrator finds a continuing breach, the certificate and expulsion notice properly enable the respondent to exercise forfeiture under clause 63(1); if not, and the time lapse was unreasonable, forfeiture is invalid and common law repudiation remedies do not apply.

Citation
19880226 TZCA Dar es Salaam
Parties
Appellant: Nitin Coffee Estates Ltd.; Appellant: Rafiki Estates Ltd.; Appellant: Nanji Devchand Patel; Appellant: Sudhir Nanji Ondhia; Appellant: Vineshwar Nanji Ondhia; Respondent: United Engineering Works Ltd.; Respondent: Jagdev Singh Manik
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
26 February 1988
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Questions Referred by Arbitrator
Outcome
Questions answered for arbitrator; partial concurrence and partial difference with High Court.
Legal Topics
Building Contracts, Forfeiture Clauses, Repudiation, Continuing Breach, Arbitration Procedure
Source Language
English
Contract Law Arbitration Building Contracts Forfeiture Clauses Repudiation Continuing Breach Arbitration Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nitin Coffee Estates Ltd.

Appellant

Rafiki Estates Ltd.

Appellant

Nanji Devchand Patel

Appellant

Sudhir Nanji Ondhia

Appellant

Vineshwar Nanji Ondhia

Appellant

United Engineering Works Ltd.

Respondent

Jagdev Singh Manik

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Questions Referred by Arbitrator

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the exercise of forfeiture under clause 63(1) was valid and effective
  2. 2 Whether the respondent could justify expulsion as acceptance of repudiation

Ratio Decidendi

If the arbitrator finds a continuing breach, the certificate and expulsion notice properly enable the respondent to exercise forfeiture under clause 63(1); if not, and the time lapse was unreasonable, forfeiture is invalid and common law repudiation remedies do not apply.

Court Disposition

Questions answered for arbitrator; partial concurrence and partial difference with High Court.

Orders

  • If arbitrator finds continuing breach, forfeiture valid; if not and time lapse unreasonable, forfeiture invalid and common law repudiation does not apply.