ms association of kilimanjaro speciality coffee growes limited others vs exim bank tanzania limited 2015 tzhccomd 2102 5 may 2015

ms association of kilimanjaro speciality coffee growes limited others vs exim bank tanzania limited 2015 tzhccomd 2102 5 may 2015

Plaintiff failed to provide detailed particulars and breakdown of the claim, and defendants raised triable issues regarding the amount and liability. Therefore, unconditional leave to defend must be granted.

Citation
ms association of kilimanjaro speciality coffee growes limited others vs exim bank tanzania limited 2015 tzhccomd 2102 5 may 2015
Parties
Applicant/defendant: M/S Association of Kilimanjaro Speciality Coffee Growers Limited; Applicant/defendant: Philemon Haule; Applicant/defendant: Blanka Ndunguru; Applicant/defendant: William Shao; Applicant/defendant: Asajile Kayange; Applicant/defendant: Emiline Swai; Applicant/defendant: Adriano Mwalusambo; Applicant/defendant: Godfrey Mwangulumbe; Respondent/plaintiff: Exim Bank (Tanzania) Limited
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
5 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Commercial Application/cause / Ruling on Application for Unconditional Leave to Defend
Outcome
unconditional leave to defend granted
Legal Topics
Summary Procedure, Loan Recovery, Guarantee Liability, Leave to Defend
Source Language
English

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M/S Association of Kilimanjaro Speciality Coffee Growers Limited

Applicant/defendant

Philemon Haule

Applicant/defendant

Blanka Ndunguru

Applicant/defendant

William Shao

Applicant/defendant

Asajile Kayange

Applicant/defendant

Emiline Swai

Applicant/defendant

Adriano Mwalusambo

Applicant/defendant

Godfrey Mwangulumbe

Applicant/defendant

Exim Bank (Tanzania) Limited

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Commercial Application/cause / Ruling on Application for Unconditional Leave to Defend

  1. 1 whether defendants are entitled to unconditional leave to defend the summary suit
  2. 2 whether plaintiff provided sufficient particulars of claim
  3. 3 liability of guarantors when part of debt is guaranteed by third party

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff failed to provide detailed particulars and breakdown of the claim, and defendants raised triable issues regarding the amount and liability. Therefore, unconditional leave to defend must be granted.

Court Disposition

unconditional leave to defend granted

Orders

  • Defendants to file written statement of defense within 21 days
  • Plaintiff to file reply within two weeks thereafter