sharzana trading co ltd vs ahmed othman ibrahim 2011 tzhc 2074 21 june 2011

sharzana trading co ltd vs ahmed othman ibrahim 2011 tzhc 2074 21 june 2011

A written contract cannot be varied by an oral agreement; the trial court erred in deducting TZS 1,000,000 based on an alleged oral agreement. The respondent is liable to pay the full outstanding balance under the written contract. The trial court's refusal to award interest is upheld due to the appellant's conduct...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
sharzana trading co ltd vs ahmed othman ibrahim 2011 tzhc 2074 21 june 2011
Parties
Appellant: Sharazana Trading Co Ltd; Respondent: Ahmed Othman Ibrahim
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
21 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Variation of Contract, Written Vs Oral Agreements, Award of Interest, Sale of Goods
Source Language
english
Contract Law Civil Procedure Variation of Contract Written Vs Oral Agreements Award of Interest Sale of Goods

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

Parties

Sharazana Trading Co Ltd

Appellant

Ahmed Othman Ibrahim

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a written contract can be amended by an oral agreement
  2. 2 Whether the trial court erred in deducting TZS 1,000,000 for engine replacement from the outstanding debt
  3. 3 Whether the appellant is entitled to interest on the principal sum

Ratio Decidendi

A written contract cannot be varied by an oral agreement; the trial court erred in deducting TZS 1,000,000 based on an alleged oral agreement. The respondent is liable to pay the full outstanding balance under the written contract. The trial court's refusal to award interest is upheld due to the appellant's conduct in stopping the vehicle from operating.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Respondent to pay appellant TZS 3,600,000
  • Appellant awarded costs of the appeal