Skip to document content Skip to main menu Skip to search

High Court Commercial Division

The Commercial Court was officially inaugurated on 15th September, 1999. The Government of Tanzania endorsed the recommendations in 1997. It is a division of the High Court of Tanzania. The difference with other High Court Registries is that this court specializes in the determination of commercial disputes only.

Visit website
https://www.comcourt.go.tz/comcourt/
3 judgments
Advanced search
All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
3 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
July 2000
CRDB Bank Ltd vs Arboghast Mkahe Oiso T/a Auto Assessors Company (Commercial Case No. 11 of 2000) [2000] TZHCComD 9 (31 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
Mkono & Company Advocate ( A FIRM ) vs J. W. Ladwa (1977 ) Ltd (Commercial Case No. 3 of 2000) [2000] TZHCComD 14 (21 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
CRDB Bank Ltd vs F. M. General Merchandise Co. Ltd & 3 Others (Commercial Case No. 23 of 2000) [2000] TZHCComD 10 (18 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