tema enterprises ltd vs euphracie methew rimisho others 2018 tzhccomd 4 3 january 2018

tema enterprises ltd vs euphracie methew rimisho others 2018 tzhccomd 4 3 january 2018

The court found that a valid loan agreement existed between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, evidenced by Exhibit P2, and that the 3rd defendant, by issuing post-dated cheques as security, became a guarantor and co-principal debtor for the loan. The 2nd defendant was found not liable due to lack of evidence of involvement. The plaintiff suffered loss due to non-payment of the loan, entitling it to damages and interest. The 1st and 3rd defendants are jointly and severally liable for the outstanding loan, damages, and costs.

Citation
tema enterprises ltd vs euphracie methew rimisho others 2018 tzhccomd 4 3 january 2018
Parties
Plaintiff: Tema Enterprises Limited; 1st Defendant: Euphracie Mathew Rimisho t/a Emari Provision Store; 2nd Defendant: Blandina Mathew Rimisho; 3rd Defendant: Emar Company Limited
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
3 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Case / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's suit succeeds against the 1st and 3rd defendants; dismissed against the 2nd defendant.
Legal Topics
Loan Agreements, Guarantee and Suretyship, Dishonoured Cheques, Damages for Breach of Contract
Source Language
English
Contract Law Commercial Law Loan Agreements Guarantee and Suretyship Dishonoured Cheques Damages for Breach 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tema Enterprises Limited

Plaintiff

Euphracie Mathew Rimisho t/a Emari Provision Store

1st Defendant

Blandina Mathew Rimisho

2nd Defendant

Emar Company Limited

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Case / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a loan agreement between the plaintiff and defendants
  2. 2 Whether all defendants are indebted to the plaintiff
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff suffered any damage from the defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that a valid loan agreement existed between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, evidenced by Exhibit P2, and that the 3rd defendant, by issuing post-dated cheques as security, became a guarantor and co-principal debtor for the loan. The 2nd defendant was found not liable due to lack of evidence of involvement. The plaintiff suffered loss due to non-payment of the loan, entitling it to damages and interest. The 1st and 3rd defendants are jointly and severally liable for the outstanding loan, damages, and costs.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's suit succeeds against the 1st and 3rd defendants; dismissed against the 2nd defendant.

Orders

  • 1st and 3rd defendants to pay jointly and severally the principal sum of TZS 385,600,000 as outstanding loan.
  • 1st and 3rd defendants to pay the plaintiff damages of TZS 30,000,000.