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/
8 judgments
Advanced search
All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
8 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
December 2010
Tanzania Investment Bank vs M/S Ilabila Industries & 3 Others (Commercial Case No. 27 of 2002) [2010] TZHCComD 8 (24 December 2010)
High Court lacked jurisdiction to order possession while a cross‑appeal affecting the property remained pending at the Court of Appeal.
Civil procedure – Execution – Third‑party purchaser’s application for delivery of possession where cross‑appeal is pending; Appeal law – Cross‑appeal survives striking out of principal appeal and requires express Court of Appeal order to end it; Court of Appeal Rules – Notice to withdraw cross‑appeal (Rule 104(1)) does not automatically terminate cross‑appeal; Execution – appeal/cross‑appeal does not automatically stay execution absent express stay order; Fraud allegations in execution require higher, specific proof.
 24 December 2010
African Banking Corporation (T) Ltd vs National Investment Co. Ltd (Commercial Case No. 60 of 2010) [2010] TZHCComD 32 (21 December 2010)
Enforcement of guarantee not barred as res sub judice nor abuse of process absent identity of issues.
* Civil Procedure Code s.8 (res sub judice) – requires identity of matters directly and substantially in issue before stay applies. * Res judicata (s.9) – final decision operates as bar only where issues are identical. * Abuse of process – not a preliminary point of law if facts/evidence required (Mukisa test). * Remedy for res sub judice is stay, not necessarily dismissal. * Pleading requirements – allegations of fraud or non‑compliance elsewhere cannot be resolved on preliminary objection without evidence.
 21 December 2010
ST. Bernard's Hospital Co. Ltd vs CRDB Bank Ltd (Commercial Case No. 75 of 2008) [2010] TZHCComD 20 (20 December 2010)
The applicant proved a valid board resolution and breach by the bank, but failed to prove quantifiable damages.
Banking law – change of signatories – corporate authority and mandate – Companies Act s.181/s.191(1) – duty of banker to act on valid instructions – withholding of security after loan repayment – proof of damages (need for financial records to quantify loss).
 20 December 2010
Imperial Insurance Company Ltd vs Nikki Telecom & Power Technologies Ltd (Commercial Case No. 274 of 2002) [2010] TZHCComD 7 (15 December 2010)
Taxing master may exceed the outdated tariff; bill of costs taxed at Tshs.7,188,345 after adjustments.
Taxation of costs – ability to depart from GN.515/91 scale – factors for departure (amount, complexity, time, research, party conduct) – instruction fees – attendance fees – duplication (pleadings included in instruction fee) – disbursements – proof of VAT registration.
 15 December 2010
Maswi Drilling Co. Ltd vs David Dickson Mwakapanda & Another (Commercial Case No. 25 of 2010) [2010] TZHCComD 30 (15 December 2010)
Ex parte judgment awarding agreed refund and interest where seller breached refund-and-return agreement after non-delivery.
Commercial law – Sale of goods – Failure to deliver – Agreement to discharge obligations – Ex parte proof after substituted service – Award of agreed refund with interest and costs.
 15 December 2010
Dar Express Co. Ltd & Another vs Estomihi Urio & Another (Commercial Case No. 89 of 2010) [2010] TZHCComD 33 (14 December 2010)
A preliminary objection on lack of locus standi fails where the issue involves mixed facts requiring trial evidence.
* Civil procedure – Preliminary objection – Locus standi – Whether absence from a lease agreement precludes standing where commercial relationship or interest is alleged – Mixed questions of fact and law require evidence at trial and cannot generally be disposed of by preliminary objection (Mukisa principle applied).
 14 December 2010
Bank M (T) Ltd vs Heildeberg East Africa Ltd & 2 Others (Commercial Case No. 18 of 2009) [2010] TZHCComD 23 (13 December 2010)
Execution permitted to proceed subject to a prior registered debenture; reservation of title excluded specific asset from attachment.
Order XXI, Rule 57 — objection to attachment; Debenture/floating charge — validity and priority; Companies Act s.96–97 and Stamp Duty — registration/stamping of charges; Reservation of title — exclusion from attachment; Garnishee order compliance; Court's discretion under Rule 61 to continue execution subject to prior charge.
 13 December 2010
Dow Agroscience Export S.A.S vs I.S & M (Metals) Ltd (Commercial Case No. 55 of 2007) [2010] TZHCComD 17 (8 December 2010)
Court found an implied principal–agent relationship and awarded plaintiff proven invoice amount, interest and costs.
* Contract law – principal and agent – implied agency inferred from conduct and course of dealing (Law of Contract Act ss.134, 139). * Evidence – commercial invoices and shipping documents as sufficient proof of delivery and debt. * Remedies – assessment of proved quantum, pre- and post-judgment interest and costs.
 8 December 2010