|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2000 |
|
|
A defendant's admission warranted judgment on admission and a court-ordered six‑installment repayment schedule with costs.
Order XII r.4 CPC – judgment on admission; enforcement of agreed repayment schedule; costs; effect of admission on proceedings against co-defendants.
|
19 December 2000 |
|
Court entered judgment on defendant's admission, awarding interest, costs and a six-month repayment schedule.
* Civil Procedure – Judgment on admission – Application of Order XII r.4 CPC to enter judgment where defendant admits liability.
* Debt recovery – Interest – Interest at Bank rate to accrue from specified date (31 October 2000).
* Enforcement – Court-ordered instalment repayment schedule and costs of suit.
|
19 December 2000 |
| October 2000 |
|
|
Application for injunction and blanket production of accounts dismissed for lack of proof and overbreadth.
Temporary injunctions — O. XXXVII r.1(a) and (b) — requirement to prove danger, removal or intention to defraud creditors; Production of documents — O. XI r.12 — scope limited to documents relating to matters in question; overbroad blanket discovery refused.
|
3 October 2000 |
| September 2000 |
|
|
Banking transactions at specified branches vest in the Company, not the Holding Corporation; preliminary objection dismissed.
Banking law — National Bank of Commerce (Reorganisation and vesting of Assets and Liabilities) Act 23/1997 — s.10(1)(a) vests banking business of specified branches in the Company; s.10(1)(e) vests non-banking assets in the Holding Corporation — proper party to sue; statutory functions of Holding Corporation (s.6) do not include conducting banking business.
|
20 September 2000 |
|
Application for enlargement of time to file defence dismissed for inordinate delay and insufficient cause.
Civil procedure — Order VIII r.1(1)&(2) CPC — time to file written statement of defence and proviso allowing 21-day extension-application period; Limitation Act s.14(1) — discretionary enlargement of time subject to ss.43(f) and 46; substituted service by publication — computation of time; sufficiency of cause — counsel negligence and reliance on registry not a sufficient excuse.
|
7 September 2000 |
| August 2000 |
|
|
Reported
A computer-generated bank record is a bankers' book and is admissible subject to the Evidence Act's safeguards.
* Evidence — Bankers' books — Whether computer-generated records/computer print-outs constitute bankers' books under the Evidence Act, 1967 — Admissibility of electronic banking records subject to statutory safeguards (secs. 77–79). * Statutory construction — Courts may interpret outdated statutory terms broadly to reflect technological and commercial developments.
|
30 August 2000 |
|
Court entered a consent judgment for the plaintiff of Tshs.18,018,000 with 24% interest; parties bear own costs.
Commercial law – consent judgment – court recording parties’ agreed monetary award and interest; costs each party to bear; payment mode left to parties.
|
21 August 2000 |
|
Court entered consent judgment awarding Tshs.18,018,000 with 24% interest; each party to bear own costs.
* Commercial law – consent judgment – court records and enforces settlement terms as judgment; amount and interest rate specified.
* Civil procedure – costs – parties may agree that each bears own costs in a consent judgment.
* Enforcement – consent judgments give monetary settlements the status of enforceable court orders; payment modalities may be left to parties.
|
21 August 2000 |
|
Unpaid costs did not bar refiling; company verification by a principal officer suffices; "and belief" struck out.
Commercial Division — interpretation of withdrawal order "on such terms" — does not create condition precedent to refiling; Civil Procedure Code — Order 28 r.1 & Order 6 r.15 (verification by corporation officers; specification of knowledge vs information and belief); s.97 CPC — court may amend or expunge procedural defects in pleadings; procedural defects in verification attract amendment/expunction, not dismissal.
|
7 August 2000 |
| July 2000 |
|
|
Leave to defend granted in a summary suit where prima facie triable issues (repayment condition, interest calculation) existed.
* Civil procedure – summary suit (O. 35) – leave to defend – requirement of prima facie triable issues.
* Contract law – condition precedent – whether repayment was conditional on clearance/sale of imported goods.
* Banking/contractual interest – compound versus agreed simple rate.
* Concurrent proceedings – effect of related suit and injunction on maintainability of subsequent action.
|
31 July 2000 |
|
A contingent "success fee" agreement with an advocate is champertous, illegal and unenforceable; claim dismissed.
* Reception clause – English common law doctrines of maintenance and champerty received into Tanzanian law and applicable. * Advocate conduct – contingent/ success fees that share recovery are champertous, contrary to public policy and unenforceable. * Statutory control – section 23 Law of Contract Ordinance and section 59 Advocates Ordinance prohibit such arrangements. * Professional rules – Tanganyika Law Society rules do not override substantive law; Advocates' Remuneration Rule para 8 gives narrow, ambiguous 5% exception.
|
21 July 2000 |
|
Applicants raised triable issues under Order XXXV Rule 3(1) and were granted unconditional leave to defend.
* Civil Procedure – Order XXXV Rule 3(1) – leave to defend – test is whether affidavit discloses triable issues; * Service – propriety of service by publication where defendants’ physical addresses were allegedly known; * Contract/Loan – existence of agreement to pay interest and dispute over 21% rate; * Remedies – application of Mechalec guidelines on conditional versus unconditional leave to defend.
|
18 July 2000 |
| April 2000 |
|
|
Reported
Leave to appeal interlocutory Commercial Division orders is barred unless the order finally determines the suit.
Commercial Division — Appeals — Section 5(2)(d) Appellate Jurisdiction Act (as amended by Act No.10/1999) — No appeal from interlocutory or preliminary orders unless they finally determine the suit — Test: whether order practically puts an end to litigation or substantially disposes of issues — Leave to appeal discretionary and to prevent frivolous delay.
|
7 April 2000 |
|
Reported
A contingency success-fee agreement between an advocate and client is champertous, illegal and unenforceable in Tanzania.
* Maintenance and champerty – contingency-fee agreements between advocates and clients – public policy and unenforceability
* Reception clause – applicability of English common law doctrines in Tanzania
* Advocates Ordinance s.59 and Law of Contract Ordinance s.23 – illegality of contingent remuneration
* Tanganyika Law Society Rules and Advocates’ Remuneration Rules – limits and lack of force to validate champerty
* Contentious vs non-contentious business – when instructions to sue constitute contentious proceedings
|
3 April 2000 |
| January 2000 |
|
|
|
17 January 2000 |