RUHINDA JUDGMENT
The High Court allowed CRDB Bank’s appeal, finding the first respondent was not proved to live in the mortgaged house and the bank was not negligent.
- Matrimonial home
- Spousal consent
- Mortgage
- Collateral
- Negligence
- Matrimonial-home
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 allowed CRDB Bank’s appeal, finding the first respondent was not proved to live in the mortgaged house and the bank was not negligent.
The High Court held that an appeal from objection proceedings in execution was incompetent. The proper remedy for a dissatisfied objector was to file a fresh suit.
The Respondent failed to prove the loan amount of TZS 30,800,000/=; only TZS 9,190,000/= was proved as advanced and not repaid. The award of general damages was unjustified as no basis was provided. The lack of stamp duty on the loan agreement was an irregularity not affecting the validity of proceedings. Collateral documents not pleaded in the original plaint were expunged. Each party to bear its own costs.
Source excerpt
The defendant admitted and signed the loan agreements, and is bound by their terms. The correct security for the loans was two properties, not Plot No. P5 Makorongoni. The outstanding amount is to be offset against FDRs, with interest calculated from consolidation date. General damages were not proved.
Source excerpt
The mortgage over the matrimonial house was declared unlawful for lack of spousal consent as required by law. The bank failed its statutory duty to make proper inquiries regarding the marital status of the mortgagor. The property was acquired during marriage, used as a matrimonial home, and the plaintiff proved her marriage and residence. The mortgage cannot stand without the plaintiff's consent.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed a civil appeal over a loan dispute, holding that the appellant failed to prove full repayment, unlawful attachment, or specific damages.
The High Court allowed a second appeal over a loan-and-collateral dispute, holding the arrangement illegal and the respondent unjustified in disposing of the car.
The High Court dismissed an appeal over an alleged loan agreement and vehicle collateral, finding the appellant's evidence inconsistent with her pleadings and unsupported.
The High Court held that a FUSO Tipper was not part of the loan collateral, found its sale unlawful, awarded damages, and ordered return of the vehicle and title on repayment of the principal.
Second appeal in a land dispute allowed after the High Court found the lower tribunals misapprehended evidence about a land sale versus a loan secured by collateral.
Explore more