Tanzania Case Law

christopher paul chale others vs commercial bank of africa tanzania limited 2023 tzca 17610 8 september 2023

Court

TZCA

The respondent bank was justified in debiting and remitting the funds due to exceptional circumstances including suspicion of money laundering, instructions from authorities, and demand from the sender; the second and third appellants were discharged from liability for subsequent advances as they did not consent to the variations or execute a deed of variation; only the first appellant remains liable for the outstanding amount under the third credit agreement.

Source excerpt

• Bank's right to debit account
• Guarantee and suretyship
• Mortgage liability
• Novation of contract
• Variation of contract
• Receiver appointment

Read case analysis

mshanawandu investment limited vs nolic company limited another 2022 tzhc 207 18 february 2022

Court

TZHC

The High Court allowed an appeal against attachment of the appellant’s motor vehicle, holding there was no contractual basis or proven security to justify the seizure.

• Lifting corporate veil
• Burden of proof
• Attachment of property
• Separate legal personality
• Guarantee and suretyship
• Corporate-veil

Read case analysis

mackriman trust fund ltd vs national bank of commerce ltd others 2020 tzhclandd 61 27 april 2020

Court

TANZLII

The High Court held that the plaintiff knew of and consented to the loan extension through its director, so the mortgage remained enforceable and the sale was lawful.

• Mortgage liability
• Guarantee and suretyship
• Extension of banking facility
• Notice to guarantor
• Lawful auction of mortgaged property
• Mortgage-liability

Read case analysis

makriman trust fund ltd vs national bank of commerce and others 2020 tzhclandd 117 27 april 2020

Court

TANZLII

The High Court held that the plaintiff had knowledge of the loan extension through its director, so the mortgage remained enforceable and the suit was dismissed.

• Mortgage liability
• Guarantee and suretyship
• Extension of banking facility
• Notice to guarantor
• Enforcement of security
• Mortgage-liability

Read case analysis

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

Court

TZHCCOMD

Commercial dispute over unpaid loans and post-dated cheques. The High Court found the 1st and 3rd defendants liable, but not the 2nd defendant.

• Loan agreements
• Guarantee and suretyship
• Dishonoured cheques
• Damages for breach of contract
• Loan-agreements
• Guarantee-and-suretyship

Read case analysis

charles richard kombe ta building vs evarani mtungi others 2017 tzca 153 8 march 2017

Court

TZCA

The trial court erred by applying both civil and criminal standards of proof and by failing to properly evaluate the evidence and pleadings. The appellant established his claim on the balance of probabilities, supported by documentary and oral evidence, and is entitled to judgment as prayed.

Source excerpt

• Standard of proof
• Dishonoured cheques
• Pleadings and amendments
• Directors' liability
• Guarantee and suretyship

Read case analysis

NBC LTD VS GREEN ACRES INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL LTD COMM CASE NO

Court

TANZLII

The Defendants, as signatories and guarantors under the loan agreement, are contractually liable to pay the outstanding loan amount to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff's actions in collecting repayments directly from employees were authorized by the agreement. The outstanding amount is substantiated by the bank statement and evidence presented. There is no credible evidence that the Plaintiff unlawfully tampered with the Defendants' bank account.

Source excerpt

• Loan recovery
• Guarantee and suretyship
• Contractual liability

Read case analysis

margesson joseph dalotta vs nbc ltd 2 others 2003 tzhccomd 15 4 september 2003

Court

TZHCCOMD

The plaintiff is permitted to withdraw the suit against the 1st and 2nd defendants without liberty to re-institute, as no formal defect or sufficient ground was shown. Judgment on admission by the principal debtor does not extinguish the creditor's cause of action against the guarantor; the liability is co-extensive and persists until the debt is fully discharged. The court cannot order execution at the request of a non-decree holder, and there are no grounds to stay proceedings against the guarantor.

Source excerpt

• Guarantee and suretyship
• Withdrawal of suit
• Counter-claim
• Execution of decree

Read case analysis