yara t ltd vs rusa investment general supplies another 2018 tzhccomd 99 24 july 2018

yara t ltd vs rusa investment general supplies another 2018 tzhccomd 99 24 july 2018

The 1st defendant, a registered business firm, entered into a contract with the plaintiff for the supply of fertilizers, received the goods, and failed to pay the outstanding balance of Tshs. 431,620,000, thereby breaching the contract. The plaintiff proved its case on the balance of probabilities. The 2nd defendant did not guarantee the transaction, and the alleged guarantee was not genuine.

Citation
yara t ltd vs rusa investment general supplies another 2018 tzhccomd 99 24 july 2018
Parties
Plaintiff: Yara Tanzania Limited; 1st Defendant: Rusa Investment and General Supplies; 2nd Defendant: Exim Bank (Tanzania) Limited
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
24 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Case / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff against the 1st defendant; suit against the 2nd defendant dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Guarantee, Damages, Interest, Business Firm Liability
Source Language
English
Contract Law Commercial Law Breach of Contract Guarantee Damages Interest Business Firm Liability

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yara Tanzania Limited

Plaintiff

Rusa Investment and General Supplies

1st Defendant

Exim Bank (Tanzania) Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Case / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st defendant, as a non-juristic person, is capable of contracting and being sued
  2. 2 Whether the 1st defendant is indebted to the plaintiff to a sum of Tshs. 431,620,000 or at all
  3. 3 Whether the 1st defendant is in breach of contract

Ratio Decidendi

The 1st defendant, a registered business firm, entered into a contract with the plaintiff for the supply of fertilizers, received the goods, and failed to pay the outstanding balance of Tshs. 431,620,000, thereby breaching the contract. The plaintiff proved its case on the balance of probabilities. The 2nd defendant did not guarantee the transaction, and the alleged guarantee was not genuine.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff against the 1st defendant; suit against the 2nd defendant dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • 1st defendant breached the Fertilizers Supply contract
  • 1st defendant to pay plaintiff Tshs. 431,620,000 as outstanding purchase price for fertilizers as of 6th December, 2016