Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Tanzania decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The 1st Defendant materially breached the supply contract by failing to deliver petroleum products and fraudulently attempted to encash the Letter of Credit with non-compliant documents. The fraud exception applies, warranting cancellation of the LC and award of damages. The banks failed to adhere to LC terms regarding compliant presentation, facilitating the fraud.
Source excerpt
The Third Party admitted to receiving the funds and failed to provide a justifiable reason for the transfer. The Defendant acted on instructions believed to be from the Plaintiff and was not negligent or malicious. The Third Party is liable to refund the Plaintiff the withdrawn amount and pay costs to both Plaintiff and Defendant.
Source excerpt
The High Court found bank fraud in the diversion of seven cheques and held the defendants jointly liable for the plaintiff’s loss, plus interest, damages, and costs.
The appellant bank was negligent in handling the cheque, failed to properly endorse it, allowed withdrawals thereby representing the cheque as cleared, and lost the cheque in its custody, making it liable for the outstanding amount and damages.
Source excerpt
The Plaintiff is entitled to recover the money paid to the 1st Defendant by mistake, as the cheques were not cleared and the 1st Defendant had no title to the funds. The 2nd Defendant, as Managing Director and signatory, is not personally liable in the absence of evidence linking him individually to the contract.
Source excerpt
The plaintiff proved on a balance of probabilities that the defendant withdrew funds from his account without authorization. The defendant failed to rebut this evidence or explain the withdrawals. The plaintiff was not negligent. The plaintiff is entitled to the principal sum, general damages, interest, and costs, but not to special damages due to lack of strict proof.
Source excerpt
The plaintiff did not authorize the withdrawals made on 3rd, 11th, and 15th March 2013 from his account, and the defendant failed to discharge the burden of proof to show otherwise. The plaintiff was not negligent, and is entitled to the principal sum, general damages, interest, and costs, but not special damages due to lack of strict proof.
Source excerpt
Explore more
