Tanzania Case Law

fego limited vs mr kuku farmers limited 2023 tzhc 20286 22 august 2023

Court

TZHC

The contracts between the parties were void and illegal as their consideration and object were forbidden by law, specifically constituting a pyramid scheme and accepting deposits without a license. As such, the contracts are unenforceable and the plaintiff is not entitled to recover any money or damages.

Source excerpt

• Illegality of contract
• Pyramid schemes
• Unlawful consideration
• Enforceability of contracts
• Forfeiture of proceeds of crime

Read case analysis

alex rumishael mlay others vs tariq said machibya another 2023 tzhc 19056 14 july 2023

Court

TZHC

The High Court held that the investment agreements were illegal and unenforceable because they amounted to a pyramid scheme and unlicensed deposit-taking.

• Illegality of contract
• Pyramid schemes
• Accepting deposits without licence
• Enforceability of contracts
• Forfeiture of proceeds of crime
• Illegal-contracts

Read case analysis

jackson sifael mtares others vs the director of public prosecutions 2021 tzca 612 28 october 2021

Court

TZCA

The Court of Appeal upheld forfeiture of properties, vehicles, and bank funds traced to a pyramid scheme, holding that notice to interested parties was sufficient.

• Forfeiture of proceeds of crime
• Lifting corporate veil
• Pyramid schemes
• Tainted property
• Notification to interested parties
• Forfeiture-of-proceeds-of-crime

Read case analysis

director of public prosecution dpp vs jackson sifael mtares 2018 tzca 393 7 september 2018

Court

TZCA

The orders of the trial and first appellate courts directing refund of money to DECI (T) Ltd. members and involving the BOT were erroneous because they failed to follow the mandatory procedure under the Proceeds of Crime Act for forfeiture and distribution of tainted property after pyramid scheme convictions. The 2012 amendment to the Anti-Money Laundering Act, which made pyramid schemes predicate offences, applies retrospectively as a procedural law. The defence of innocent owner could only be properly considered through the PCA process, which was not followed.

Source excerpt

• Pyramid schemes
• Proceeds of crime
• Forfeiture
• Retrospective application of procedural law
• Innocent owner defence

Read case analysis

20180907 TZCA Dar es Salaam

Court

TZCA

The trial and first appellate courts erred in ordering refund of money to DECI (T) Ltd. members and directing the BOT to arrange the refund without following the mandatory procedure under the Proceeds of Crime Act (PCA), as amended to include pyramid schemes as predicate offences. The defence of innocent owner was improperly accorded without hearing the members. The proper procedure requires the DPP to apply for forfeiture under the PCA, with notice and opportunity to be heard for interested parties. The 2012 amendment to the Anti-Money Laundering Act, which brought pyramid schemes within the…

Source excerpt

• Pyramid schemes
• Proceeds of crime
• Forfeiture
• Innocent owner defence
• Retrospective application of law

Read case analysis