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 held that the second defendant was not proved to be a director or shareholder, but a settlement deed allotted him 30 acres; 19 acres reverted to the plaintiff.
The petitioner is the lawful owner of 4,512 fully paid-up shares in the 1st respondent company, the removal as director was not done in accordance with the law and proper procedure, and the respondents' actions were unfairly prejudicial. Reliefs sought for appointment as chairman/managing director, co-signatory rights, audit, dividends, commissions, and injunctions were declined as they are matters for the company or lacked evidentiary basis. The cross-petition lacked merit as the evidence supports the petitioner's shareholding and no proof was provided for the respondents' claims.
Source excerpt
Declaration of Trust is illegal, null and void as it contravenes Articles of Association, Tanzanian company and land laws, and was executed in conflict of interest; all changes in company structure based on Declaration of Trust are irregular and must be expunged; company secretary breached trust and must convene meetings; Petitioners entitled to reliefs sought.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that the bank proved two overdraft facilities, but failed to prove the 2nd and 3rd defendants guaranteed the second facility.
The High Court found the defendants breached an investment agreement and ordered refund of USD 187,500 plus interest and costs.
The High Court ordered the Defendants to refund USD 187,500, finding they breached an investment agreement involving diamond trade and share allocation.
The Settlement Agreement and share transfer were voluntarily executed and are valid and enforceable. No evidence of duress or illegality was proved to the requisite standard. The 1st Defendant paid for his shares. The Plaintiff interfered with the Second Defendant's business, entitling the Second Defendant to general damages, declaration, injunction, and costs.
Source excerpt
The plaintiffs' active participation in the company's affairs with the encouragement and assurance of the defendants, and the application of equitable estoppel, preclude the defendants from denying the plaintiffs' locus standi at this stage.
Source excerpt
Explore more
