|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2019 |
|
|
Payment bonds were unenforceable due to non-payment of premium and breach of the underlying facility by beneficiary and borrower.
* Guarantees/Payment bonds – validity – subject to URDG 2010 but governed by Tanzanian law; consideration (premium) required to perfect bonds; non-payment renders bonds unenforceable. * Contract law – consideration and perfection of securities; section 79 Law of Contract Act. * Variation/disbursement – material variation of underlying facility discharges surety (section 85). * Demand guarantee procedure – beneficiary must act in good faith and support demand with underlying documents (LC, bill of lading).
|
13 December 2019 |
| September 2019 |
|
|
Default judgment granted where amended Rule 22(1) requirements were met and breach of contract for non‑delivery caused quantified losses.
Commercial Procedure Rules – Rule 22(1) (amended) – Default judgment prerequisites: proof of service, application in Form No.1 and affidavit in proof – Breach of contract for non‑delivery of moulds/changeover parts – Assessment of damages on balance of probabilities – Interest and costs – Publication condition before execution (Rule 22(2)).
|
27 September 2019 |
|
Default judgment for unpaid bank loan granted where defendants defaulted, were duly served, and documentary proof established indebtedness.
Commercial law – Credit facilities – Existence of loan agreement – Mortgage, debenture and personal guarantees – Default and breach – Default judgment under Commercial Division Rules – Proof by documentary evidence – Award of contractual and post-judgment interest and costs.
|
26 September 2019 |
|
Challenge to arbitral award dismissed: petitioner failed to prove misconduct or improper procurement; costs within arbitrator’s discretion.
Arbitration — Setting aside award — Section 16 Arbitration Act — Misconduct vs. improperly procured award — Errors of law or fact not grounds unless on face of award — Arbitrator’s discretion to award and tax costs.
|
26 September 2019 |
|
Arbitral award set aside because Attorney General was not notified or allowed to intervene as required by amended law.
Arbitration — Treasury Registrar — Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendment) (No.3) Act, 2016 — mandatory right of Attorney General to intervene — statutory duty to notify — failure to notify renders arbitration award improperly procured.
|
26 September 2019 |
|
Leave to defend granted where applicants raised triable issues of misrepresentation, payment and unauthorized operation of a frozen account.
Commercial procedure – summary suit – leave to defend under Order XXXV Rule 3(1)(b) – triable issues (misrepresentation, payment, operation of frozen bank account) – evidential burden in opposing affidavits – relevance of Order XXXV Rule 3(1)(c) and Mortgages Financial (Special Provisions) Act.
|
20 September 2019 |
|
A joint defence signed by one defendant for others was held valid and preliminary objections were overruled with costs.
Civil procedure — validity of joint written statement of defence signed by one defendant on behalf of others; Order III(2)(a) interpreted as relating to appearance, not signing pleadings; signature and verification of pleadings; harmless‑error doctrine; impermissible amendment of objections by written submissions without leave; sufficiency of denials under Order VIII to defeat summary judgment.
|
20 September 2019 |
|
Res sub judice requires identical causes of action; procedural font defects are curable and not fatal to a plaint.
* Civil procedure – res sub judice – applies where parties and matter in issue are directly and substantially the same; different causes of action defeat application. * Commercial procedure – Rule 19(1) formatting requirements – non‑compliance is procedural and not necessarily fatal; rejection at admission stage. * Overriding objective – procedural rules are handmaid, not mistress, of justice; court may overlook technical defects to secure substantial justice.
|
20 September 2019 |
|
Decree holder’s right to apply to bid accrues from proclamation of sale; 60‑day limitation applies and court allowed bidding and set‑off.
* Civil Procedure – Execution – Order XXI r.70 – Decree holder’s leave to bid – accrual of right from proclamation of sale; * Limitation – where CPC silent, Item 21 Third Schedule Limitation Act (60 days) applies; * Evidence – late application to expunge affidavit paragraphs disallowed; * Execution practice – court may permit decree holder to bid and order set‑off of purchase price.
|
20 September 2019 |
|
Applicant granted extension to file TRA witness statement; request to file additional witness statement refused.
* Civil procedure – extension of time – sufficient reasons and accounting for delay – internal verification by government agency (TRA) may justify delay.
* Evidence – witness statement as testimony in chief – no room for supplementary/additional witness statements after testimony in chief is closed.
* Commercial Division procedure – amendments permitting filing of witness statements after Final Pre‑Trial Conference reduce likelihood of prejudice from late filing.
|
20 September 2019 |
|
Court conditionally ordered arrest and detention to execute a decree after judgment debtors failed to show cause or produce supporting evidence.
Execution — Order XXI Rule 10(2)(j)(iii) CPC — Arrest and detention as mode of execution; Order XXI Rule 35(1) — show cause hearing required before deprivation of liberty; No legal requirement of prior formal demand before applying for arrest and detention; Court may grant conditional period to satisfy decretal sum; upkeep obligations under Order XXI Rule 38 CPC.
|
17 September 2019 |
|
Extension of time to set aside ex parte judgment refused for failure to show sufficient cause and account for delay.
Extension of time – Law of Limitation Act s.14(1) – requirement to show sufficient cause and account for each day of delay – evidential burden in supporting affidavit – notice via counsel and correspondence – limits to applying overriding objective principle.
|
17 September 2019 |
|
Default judgment denied where unauthenticated documents and affidavit failed to prove loan existence or breach.
Default judgment (Rule 22(1)) — affidavit must prove claim; documentary exhibits must be admissible and authenticated; photocopies/electronic statements require certification or compliance with Electronic Transactions Act; plaintiff bears burden to prove existence, terms and breach of loan agreement.
|
13 September 2019 |
|
Plaintiff proved breach of security contract and obtained Tshs.143,106,373.25 plus interest and costs.
Contract law – breach of service contract; Damages – special damages proven by invoices; Evidence – ex parte hearing, credibility of single witness corroborated by documents; Pleadings – general/evasive denials insufficient; Interest – pre-judgment 12%, post-judgment 7% per annum.
|
12 September 2019 |
|
Leave to appeal granted where trial judge raised suo motu issues and denied the applicant the right to be heard.
Civil procedure — leave to appeal under s.5(1)(c) AJA — distinction between enabling and procedural provisions — non‑citation of Court of Appeal Rules not fatal; Affidavit verification — governed by Order XIX and relevant statutes — sub‑paragraphs included by verification of numbered paragraph; Right to be heard — court may not decide suo motu issues affecting parties without hearing — remedy includes leave to appeal.
|
12 September 2019 |
|
Bank's loan claim proved; court pierced corporate veil and held directors personally liable for unpaid loan, interest, damages and costs.
* Commercial/Contract law – existence and breach of loan/credit facilities and guaranty agreements – proof by sanction letters, debentures, mortgages and bank statements.
* Corporate law – lifting/piercing the corporate veil where directors obstruct receivership and frustrate enforcement of creditors’ rights.
* Remedies – award of principal, contractual/commercial interest, post‑judgment interest, general damages and costs.
|
11 September 2019 |
|
Stay of execution and restitution refused; existing prohibitory status quo extended pending determination of related application.
* Civil procedure — interim reliefs — maintenance of status quo, stay of execution, restitution — requirements for grant (imminent danger, irreparable injury, balance of convenience). * Temporary injunction — Attilio v Mbowe principles (triable issue, irreparable harm, balance of convenience). * Summary procedure — challenge to decretal sum and adequacy of evidence to set aside summary judgment. * Order XXI Rule 24(3) CPC — security and protection of decree-holder rights; prohibitory orders as interim protection.
|
11 September 2019 |
|
Plaintiff failed to prove unpaid balance under vehicle sale; both claim and counterclaim dismissed for lack of evidence.
Sale of goods/hire‑purchase – evidence – parties agreed sale of six buses but disputed payment terms – failure to tender written agreements referenced in pleadings – adverse inference – inconsistencies in account exhibit – burden of proof on each party for claim and counterclaim – failure to produce bank pay‑in slips/receipts – dismissal of claim and counterclaim.
|
10 September 2019 |
|
Court exercised inherent jurisdiction to extend expired commercial 'speed track' life span and granted four-month extension with costs.
Commercial Court procedure — Rule 32(3) speed track life span — expiry and lacuna; Civil Procedure Code ss.93 & 95 — enlargement of time and inherent jurisdiction; GN. No.107/2019 (Rule 32(4)) — Court’s power to extend life span; whether expiration permits striking out or dismissal; extension granted with costs.
|
10 September 2019 |
|
A Rule 75 application cannot effect substantive changes to a ruling; appeals or review are the proper remedies.
* Civil procedure – Rule 75 (High Court (Commercial Division) Procedure Rules) – rectification limited to clerical or arithmetical mistakes and accidental slips; does not permit substantive alteration of discretionary rulings. * Arbitration – stay of proceedings pending arbitration – orders granting or refusing stay are challengeable by appeal (s.5(1)(b)(v) AJA) or review (Order XLII R1 CPC), not by Rule 75 amendment applications. * Affidavit practice – objection that paragraphs are argumentative raised but not decided where preliminary points dispose of application.
|
10 September 2019 |
|
Plaintiff’s claim dismissed: contradictions between testimony and documentary exhibit defeated proof of the alleged vehicle sale.
Commercial law – alleged sale of motor vehicles; sufficiency of evidence to prove contract; contradictions between pleadings, witness testimony and documentary exhibit; effect of inconsistent documents on proof of contract; ex parte proceedings and costs.
|
9 September 2019 |
|
Stay of execution refused where the alleged related application was already dismissed and no pending challenge existed.
Execution law – stay of execution – requirement of pending suit/appeal/review/revision to support stay; proclamation of sale – alleged illegality but unpleaded; attachment and execution orders – validity where no pending challenge; procedural requirement – parties bound by chamber summons.
|
4 September 2019 |
|
Petitioner failed to prove administration would restore the company as a going concern or better realise assets; petition dismissed with costs.
Companies Act — administration orders (ss. 247, 248) — requirements: company unable or likely to become unable to pay debts; purposes (survival as going concern; more advantageous realisation than winding up) — necessity for specific evidence (stock lists, valuations, location, management/turnaround plan, funding and timeline) — speculative assertions insufficient — petition dismissed with costs.
|
4 September 2019 |
|
Application for extension to appeal struck out as overtaken by events due to pending appeal and default judgment.
Extension of time — discretionary relief — sufficiency of reasons — application rendered overtaken by events where main suit decided and related appeal pending; appealability of interlocutory order; stay of proceedings application; arbitration clause and responsibility to initiate arbitration; redundancy of parallel proceedings.
|
4 September 2019 |
|
Filing a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal ousts the High Court’s jurisdiction to hear an application to set aside that judgment.
* Civil procedure – jurisdiction – effect of filing a notice of appeal – filing notice of appeal to Court of Appeal deprives High Court of jurisdiction to entertain proceedings arising from that judgment. * Civil procedure – ex parte judgment – proper remedy to set aside is by application under Order IX Rule 13(1) CPC, not by appeal. * Commercial Court practice – preliminary objection on jurisdiction – to be examined even where respondent absents.
|
3 September 2019 |
|
Application to pierce corporate veil and detain managing director denied for lack of proof and premature execution steps.
* Execution of decree – modes of execution – arrest and detention of judgment debtor as civil prisoner – Order XXI Rule 28 CPC.
* Lifting/piercing corporate veil – exceptions where company used as sham, fraud or to avoid legal duty – burden to prove dishonesty or fraudulent design.
* Decree holder’s duty to identify assets for attachment before seeking extraordinary execution relief.
* Constitutional protection of personal liberty (Article 15) limits intrusive execution measures.
|
2 September 2019 |
| August 2019 |
|
|
Plaintiff entitled to refund for undelivered and auctioned fuel; fraud claim failed and deposited title deed did not create security.
* Commercial law – sale of goods – pro‑forma invoices and payment records as evidence of purchase and non‑delivery.
* Tax liability – where sale price is tax‑inclusive, seller’s failure to remit taxes can render seller liable for loss when TRA seizes and auctions goods.
* Evidence – burden of proof on allegations of fraud/criminal conspiracy; absence of criminal investigation undermines civil fraud claim.
* Company law – separate legal personality; single‑director acknowledgment does not bind company absent board authority.
* Security by deposit of title deed – no lien arises absent a lender‑borrower relationship and valid acknowledgment of debt.
* Remedies – award of principal sums, interest (Bank of Tanzania lending rate and decretal rate) and costs.
|
9 August 2019 |
| May 2019 |
|
|
A court order was reviewed for being issued without hearing the parties, violating the right to be heard.
Civil Procedure – Review – Right to be heard – Mistake apparent on face of record – Restoration of application for hearing.
|
31 May 2019 |
| April 2019 |
|
|
Non-resident plaintiff may be ordered to give security for costs; USD 5,000,000 was excessive, court ordered Tshs 20,000,000.
Civil Procedure – Security for costs – Order XXV r.1 & r.2 CPC – Non-resident plaintiff – Purpose of security to cover court costs (not commercial losses) – Admissibility of evidence in written submissions – Quantum of security – Discretionary relief.
|
30 April 2019 |
|
Applicant's unexplained inordinate delay and unpleaded illegality claim led to dismissal of extension to stay execution.
Law of Limitation – extension of time – sufficient cause for delay; Rejoinder – new unpleaded point of illegality not entertained; Defective decree – curable/rectifiable under procedural rules and not ground for extension; Execution – defective decree cannot be executed until rectified but rectification belongs to execution proceedings.
|
29 April 2019 |
|
Application to stay sale in execution dismissed as incompetent due to wrong statutory citation; amendment at hearing refused.
* Civil procedure – competence of application – wrong citation of enabling provision – wrong citation fatal and renders application incompetent.
* Civil procedure – amendment of pleadings – amendments to cure citation errors must be sought before hearing; court will not amend pleadings at hearing to cure competence defects.
* Execution law – stay of sale in execution – application under wrong provision cannot be entertained.
|
24 April 2019 |
|
The plaintiff failed to prove interest waiver; after the defendant wrote off the debt the retained title must be released.
* Commercial law – overdraft facility – security by mortgage – distinction between reduction and waiver of interest; construction of debtor's letter.* Deed of undertaking – acknowledgement of debt and repayment schedule – effect when signed by debtor only.* Interest capitalisation on default – calculation and impact on outstanding balance.* Debt write‑off – consequences for lender's right to retain security; release of title after write‑off.* Remedy – dismissal of damages claim and order for release of certificate of title.
|
24 April 2019 |
|
Court upheld Taxing Master's reduction of instruction fees due to lack of EFD receipts and failure to prove claimed costs.
Costs — Taxation of bill of costs — instruction and perusal/consultation fees — requirement to prove payments by EFD receipts under Tax Administration Act — burden of proof (Evidence Act) — discretion of Taxing Master — when High Court may interfere.
|
24 April 2019 |
|
Failure to annex the original or certified arbitration agreement to a stay petition is fatal; petition struck out with costs.
* Arbitration — Rule 8, GN No. 427 of 1957 — Requirement to annex the original or a duly certified copy of the submission to a petition for stay — Mandatory compliance — Non-compliance fatal.
* Stay of proceedings pending arbitration — Procedural requirements for petition competence.
* Interpretation — Mandatory wording of rules cannot be dispensed with merely because the agreement’s existence may be undisputed.
|
23 April 2019 |
|
The applicant's seven-month unexplained delay after appeal was struck out did not justify an extension of time.
Extension of time – section 11(1) Appellate Jurisdiction Act – discretionary exercise – Lyamuya guidelines – applicant must account for each day of delay – court-caused procedural defects excusable only for period prior to striking out – unexplained post-strike-out delay fatal.
|
23 April 2019 |
|
Plaintiff proved loan and mortgage; transfer to company unproven; special damages denied, general damages TZS 70,000,000 awarded.
Commercial law – mortgage discharge after repayment – lender’s obligation to release title deed; proof of assignment/transfer of land – need for title deed or land registry search; special damages – strict proof required; general damages – compensation for distress arising from unlawful withholding of security; costs awarded to successful plaintiff.
|
12 April 2019 |
|
Applicant failed to prove non-service or sufficient cause; substituted publication service was valid; application dismissed.
Commercial procedure — Extension of time — Discretionary and requires sufficient cause; substituted service by publication — valid under Order V Rule 20 where personal service fails; burden to prove imprisonment/release (release order) — failure gives adverse inference; alleged illegality does not automatically excuse delay; "technical delay" requires promptness after earlier procedural defect.
|
12 April 2019 |
|
An application to be joined under Order 1 r.10(2) CPC must be filed within 60 days of awareness under the Limitation Act.
* Civil Procedure — Joinder of parties — Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC — limitation where no period provided — Law of Limitation Act Part III item 21 (60 days).
* Procedural law — effect of "at any stage" language — does not displace statutory limitation.
* Joinder — distinction between court suo motu addition of parties and an applicant's late application to be joined.
* Relief — late joinder application dismissed with costs for being filed without leave and out of time.
|
12 April 2019 |
Independence and separability of the arbitration agreement - Whether having several defendants is a bar for any one of them to pray for an order of stay of proceedings in court if there is an agreement and an arbitration clause. - The court’s duty to consider the rights of the parties in terms of multiplicity of proceedings and costs when ordering stay of proceedings pending arbitration |
12 April 2019 |
|
Court granted extension to file appeal despite unexplained delay, because alleged illegality in the judgment warranted appeal.
* Extension of time – application under s.11(1) AJA and s.95 CPC – whether good cause shown; sufficiency of explanation for delay and requirement to account for each day.
* Illegality – allegation that court raised and decided a point of law suo motu without hearing – whether alleged illegality justifies extension of time.
* Discretionary relief – court may grant extension despite defects in explanation where the impugned decision raises serious questions of law affecting public/industry interest.
* Evidentiary contradictions – weight of inconsistent affidavits and documentary evidence when assessing delay.
|
11 April 2019 |
|
Application to extend time to set aside dismissal dismissed for citing wrong provisions and unpleaded relief.
Commercial Court – application for extension of time to set aside dismissal – improper citation of legal provisions renders application incompetent; court moved by chamber summons not by submissions; unpleaded relief cannot be advanced by submissions.
|
11 April 2019 |
|
A dispute over a share purchase agreement is a commercial matter; plaint adequately framed and verification valid, so objections dismissed.
Commercial Division jurisdiction — whether share purchase agreement disputes constitute "commercial cases" (Rule 3(c)); Pleadings — compliance with Order II Rule 1 (proper framing to afford final decision); Verification — compliance with Order VI Rule 15(3) (date/place of verification).
|
10 April 2019 |
|
Interim injunction granted restraining respondent from removing 725 tonnes of rice pending the main suit; transfer permitted for treatment.
Interim injunction – restraint on removal or interference with goods; prerequisites for interim relief – prima facie case, irreparable harm, balance of convenience; permissive transfer of goods for preservation; respondent not opposing the application.
|
5 April 2019 |
|
|
5 April 2019 |
|
Applicant failed to show sufficient cause for extension of time; application dismissed with costs.
Extension of time – Law of Limitation Act s.14(1) – applicant must account for each day of delay – sufficiency of cause – pursuing Court of Appeal appeal, court vacation or advocate’s absence not automatically sufficient without evidence – s.21 inapplicable to post-appeal delay.
|
5 April 2019 |
|
A mortgagee sale without statutorily required notices is unlawful; purchaser’s protection arises only upon registration.
Land law – mortgagee sale – mandatory sixty‑day default notice (s.127 Land Act) and fourteen‑day auction notice (s.12 Auctioneers Act); failure fatal to sale; bona fide purchaser protection accrues on registration/transfer.
|
5 April 2019 |
|
Plaintiff's claim dismissed for failing to prove quantum and debt transfer, and for not tendering required claim forms.
Commercial contract — proof of debt — requirement of detailed claim forms under contract clause — absence of claim forms undermines invoices and bank statements; amendment of pleadings — parties bound by pleadings; corporate succession — public notice insufficient to prove assumption of predecessor's debts; failure to prove quantum — dismissal with costs.
|
5 April 2019 |
|
Applicant proved unpaid sales and the respondents remained liable under personal guarantees, judgment for monetary recovery.
Commercial law – breach of depot operator agreement and unpaid sales proceeds; enforcement of settlement agreement; personal guarantees by directors – construed as unlimited, personal and effective until valid revocation; change of directorship does not discharge a personal guarantee absent proper notice; remedies: declaratory judgment, monetary award, contractual and post-judgment interest, costs.
|
5 April 2019 |
|
Bank properly withheld confidential account information; plaintiff failed to prove negligence or loss.
Banking law – banker-customer confidentiality – Section 48(1) Banking and Financial Institutions Act 2006; Tournier principle; knowledge of account holder; negligence and proof of loss.
|
4 April 2019 |
|
Court granted unconditional leave to defend a summary mortgage suit due to bona fide triable issues about loan terms.
Summary procedure – mortgage claims – Order XXXV r.3(1)(c)(ii) CPC – leave to defend – statutory grounds (loan not taken or discharged) – bona fide triable issues – misrepresentation on currency of disbursement – discretion to grant unconditional leave despite non-compliance with strict statutory conditions.
|
4 April 2019 |