lulu victor kayombo vs oceanic bay limited another 2021 tzca 228 7 june 2021

lulu victor kayombo vs oceanic bay limited another 2021 tzca 228 7 june 2021

The Sale Agreement expressly provided that in case of default by the purchaser, the seller's remedy was repossession of the property, not specific performance for payment. Oceanic Bay was not a party to the contract and could not be held liable. The trial court erred in ordering specific performance; the contract terms should have been enforced as written.

Citation
lulu victor kayombo vs oceanic bay limited another 2021 tzca 228 7 june 2021
Parties
Appellant/1st Respondent: Lulu Victor Kayombo; 1st Respondent/necessary Party: Oceanic Bay Limited; 2nd Respondent/appellant: Mchinga Bay Limited
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
7 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Consolidated Civil Appeals / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Main appeal dismissed with costs; cross appeal allowed; judgment and decree of the High Court quashed and set aside.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Breach of Contract, Privity of Contract, Remedies for Breach, Interpretation of Contract
Source Language
English
Contract Law Land Law Specific Performance Breach of Contract Privity of Contract Remedies for Breach Interpretation of Contract

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lulu Victor Kayombo

Appellant/1st Respondent

Oceanic Bay Limited

1st Respondent/necessary Party

Mchinga Bay Limited

2nd Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Consolidated Civil Appeals / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the agreement between Lulu and Mchinga created a cause of action to sue in breach
  2. 2 Whether Oceanic Bay could be held jointly and severally liable for the purchase price balance
  3. 3 Whether the trial court erred in ordering specific performance instead of enforcing the contract terms

Ratio Decidendi

The Sale Agreement expressly provided that in case of default by the purchaser, the seller's remedy was repossession of the property, not specific performance for payment. Oceanic Bay was not a party to the contract and could not be held liable. The trial court erred in ordering specific performance; the contract terms should have been enforced as written.

Court Disposition

Main appeal dismissed with costs; cross appeal allowed; judgment and decree of the High Court quashed and set aside.

Orders

  • Dismissal of Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2020 with costs
  • Allowance of Civil Appeal No. 155 of 2020