The counterclaim was improperly instituted as a separate suit without a court order for separate determination and against a non-existent party. Therefore, it must be struck out.
The appellants failed to prove the restraining order was served before the auction; loan repayment did not follow contractual schedule, constituting default; auction procedures and notice requirements were complied with; omission of counterclaim did not prejudice appellants; evidence was properly evaluated; and bona fide purchaser rights are protected.
High Court land appeal over an alleged oral sale of surveyed land. The court held the sale was invalid for lack of written agreement and allowed the appeal.
The appeal was allowed because the trial tribunal based its decision on a counterclaim that was never formally filed, admitted secondary evidence without procedural compliance, relied on inadmissible hearsay, considered matters outside the framed issues, and failed to properly evaluate evidence of first occupation by the appellants.
The tribunal was correct in dismissing the counterclaim as unsubstantiated despite the respondent's failure to file a defence, as there was no contractual or legal basis for the relief sought. The tribunal had jurisdiction, the respondent's title was valid at the commencement of the suit, and the appellant's subsequent title deeds did not affect the outcome. The failure to join the Government or conduct a site visit did not vitiate the proceedings. The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed with costs.
The trial tribunal erred by raising and deciding on the issue of non-joinder of an administrator at the judgment stage after the parties had closed their cases, which occasioned injustice to the appellant. The tribunal should have proceeded to compose and deliver judgment based on the evidence on record.
The trial court's failure to comply with mandatory procedural requirements for counterclaims, including written form and payment of court fees, resulted in unfair trial and vitiated both trial and appellate proceedings, rendering them nullities.
The appellant was not duly served with a notice of default as required by the mortgage deed and section 127(1) of the Land Act; however, the 4th respondent, having acquired registered title as a bonafide purchaser for value, is protected under section 135 of the Land Act, and the sale cannot be set aside in absence of fraud or misrepresentation.
The High Court’s Land Division held that the plaintiff proved ownership of the disputed Mbezi Beach property under the sale agreement and granted an injunction. The 1st defendant’s counterclaim failed.
Banking lawnmb bank plc vs mafubilo general supplies ltd 5 others by way of counter claim rose mutagonga kundecha vs nmb bank plc 2 others 2023 tzhccomd 319 29 september 2023
High Court commercial judgment on loan default, mortgage enforcement, and alleged forged variations. The bank succeeded; the counterclaim was dismissed.