osman gao hoza vs paul interbusiness co ltd and another 2020 tzhccomd 2082 7 february 2020

osman gao hoza vs paul interbusiness co ltd and another 2020 tzhccomd 2082 7 february 2020

The suit against the 2nd defendant is time-barred as it was filed after the six-year limitation period, and the exemption of time spent in previous litigation applies only to the 1st defendant. The evidence does not establish that the 1st defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff. Consequently, both claims fail and the suit is dismissed.

Citation
osman gao hoza vs paul interbusiness co ltd and another 2020 tzhccomd 2082 7 february 2020
Parties
Plaintiff: Osman Gao Hoza; 1st Defendant: Paula Interbusiness Co. Ltd; 2nd Defendant: Hashim Paula Gao
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
7 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Case / Judgment
Outcome
Dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Breach of Contract, Cheque Dishonour, Corporate Personality
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Limitation of Actions Breach of Contract Cheque Dishonour Corporate Personality

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Osman Gao Hoza

Plaintiff

Paula Interbusiness Co. Ltd

1st Defendant

Hashim Paula Gao

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Case / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the time between 2014 and 29th July 2017 should be excluded from the computation of time limit in filing this case as per the Law of Limitation Act
  2. 2 Whether the defendants have been borrowing money from the plaintiff and what were the terms agreed by the parties
  3. 3 Whether the transactions in issue were legal

Ratio Decidendi

The suit against the 2nd defendant is time-barred as it was filed after the six-year limitation period, and the exemption of time spent in previous litigation applies only to the 1st defendant. The evidence does not establish that the 1st defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff. Consequently, both claims fail and the suit is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The suit is dismissed with costs.