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 High Court dismissed ENCOD’s claim over a repossessed vehicle and allowed Stanbic Bank’s counterclaim for the outstanding VAF debt, holding the borrower defaulted under the contract.
The High Court Commercial Division held that Azania Bank proved disbursement and default on a loan to the defendant and awarded the outstanding sum, interest, and costs.
Plaintiffs proved existence of loan and mortgage, entitlement to documents, and that certain properties were not part of mortgage. Statutory notice requirements were complied with, but plaintiffs entitled to declaration of ownership for properties not mortgaged and to be furnished with relevant documents.
Source excerpt
The applicant satisfied the requirements for a Mareva injunction by showing intention to sue the government, giving statutory notice, and establishing a triable issue. It is just and equitable to restrain the respondents from disposing of the property pending suit.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed I & M Bank’s claim for the remaining loan balance after sale of mortgaged property, finding negligence and bad faith in the valuation and sale process.
The Court of Appeal upheld liability for a consolidated loan of TZS 385,600,000, relying on a written agreement admitted without objection and dismissing evidentiary challenges.
The High Court dismissed an application for extension of time to challenge a commercial summary judgment, finding the four-year delay unexplained and insufficiently justified.
The High Court held that the 1st and 2nd defendants breached a contract to return a title deed after one year, while the bank could retain it as security.
The High Court Commercial Division recorded a consent judgment adopting a deed of settlement in a bank loan dispute and made it the court’s decree.
The execution of the term loan facility between the Plaintiff and the 3rd Defendant constituted a novation, extinguishing the original overdraft facility and discharging the 1st Defendant from liability. The Plaintiff's claim against the 1st Defendant was not justified as the original facility ceased to exist upon novation and settlement with the 3rd Defendant.
Source excerpt
Explore more
