20181219 TZHC Mwanza2

20181219 TZHC Mwanza2

The trial court misapprehended the evidence and wrongly rejected relevant bank statements that were annexed to the plaint. The evidence on record, including admitted bank statements and oral testimony, established that the first and second respondents did not deposit the contractual sums into the appellant's account. The purported deposit slips were found to be fraudulent. The third respondent was not liable as no cause of action was established against it.

Citation
20181219 TZHC Mwanza2
Parties
Appellant: Sengerema District Council; 1st Respondent: Nyalwambu Investment Co Ltd; 2nd Respondent: Valence Makaga; 3rd Respondent: National Micro Finance Bank (NMB)
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
19 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Admissibility of Evidence, Secondary Evidence, Banking Procedures, General Damages
Source Language
English
Contract Law Civil Procedure Evidence Breach of Contract Admissibility of Evidence Secondary Evidence Banking Procedures General Damages

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sengerema District Council

Appellant

Nyalwambu Investment Co Ltd

1st Respondent

Valence Makaga

2nd Respondent

National Micro Finance Bank (NMB)

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in rejecting secondary evidence under section 68 of the Tanzania Evidence Act
  2. 2 Whether the first and second respondents breached the contract by failing to deposit agreed sums into the appellant's account
  3. 3 Whether the trial court failed to resolve key issues and misapprehended the evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The trial court misapprehended the evidence and wrongly rejected relevant bank statements that were annexed to the plaint. The evidence on record, including admitted bank statements and oral testimony, established that the first and second respondents did not deposit the contractual sums into the appellant's account. The purported deposit slips were found to be fraudulent. The third respondent was not liable as no cause of action was established against it.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Judgment of the trial court overruled and set aside.
  • First and second respondents to pay Tshs. 5 million as general damages to the appellant.