Diamond Trust Bank (T) Limited vs Kahela Traders Limited & others (Commercial Case No. 133 of 2014) [2016] TZHC 2253 (16 December 2016)

TanzLII

Automated Summary

Key Facts

Diamond Trust Bank (T) Limited granted Kahela Traders Limited a Tshs. 50,000,000/= overdraft facility in May 2012, guaranteed by Alex Yakobo Kahela, Asteria Sugwejo Kahela, and the late Gasper John Minja. The facility was secured by a matrimonial home in Arusha. Kahela Traders Limited defaulted, leaving the account in arrears of Tshs. 82,335,332/66 by 30.09.2014. Gasper John Minja died in 2013, and his administrators, Doris Martine and Daalgreen Gasper, were sued. The court found the guarantees valid and ruled the defendants must repay the debt, with interest at 7% post-judgment and costs awarded to the plaintiff.

Deceased Name

Gasper John Minja

Transaction Type

Credit facility for Tshs. 50,000,000/=

Issues

  • The fourth issue is determining the reliefs to which the parties are entitled, including the principal sum, interest rates, and costs of the suit.
  • The second issue is whether the second, third, and fourth defendants guaranteed the clearance of the facility in case of any default by the first defendant.
  • The first issue is whether the plaintiff granted an overdraft facility of Tshs. 50,000,000/= to the first defendant.
  • The third issue is whether the defendants serviced the loan, as evidenced by the bank statements and testimony.

Date of Death

2013 November 15

Holdings

  • The defendants did not service the loan.
  • The second, third, and fourth defendants guaranteed the facility's clearance in case of default.
  • The court confirmed that the plaintiff granted an overdraft facility of Tshs. 50,000,000/=
  • The court decreed payment of the principal sum, adjusted interest at 7% per annum, and costs.

Remedies

  • The defendants should, jointly and severally, pay the plaintiff costs of the suit.
  • The defendants should, jointly and severally, pay the plaintiff Tshs. 82,335,332/66 being the principal sum with interest accruing thereon as at 30.09.2014.
  • The defendants should, jointly and severally, pay the plaintiff interest at the court's rate of 7% per annum on the decreetal sum from the date of judgment (16th December 2016) to the date of satisfaction in full.

Contract Value

50000000.00

Will Type

Intestacy

Monetary Damages

82335332.66

Probate Status

Letters of Administration were granted to Doris Martine and Daalgreen Gasper as administrators of the estate of Gasper John Minja (deceased).

Legal Principles

The court applied the principle that an administratrix of an estate, as a legal representative under the Probate and Administration of Estates Act, Cap. 352, is bound by the deceased's obligations and cannot unilaterally challenge prior contractual commitments made by the deceased, such as guarantees for a loan. This principle was central to dismissing the administratrix's defense regarding the forged consent form.

Succession Regime

Governed by the Probate and Administration of Estates Act, Cap. 352, under which the administratrix of the deceased's estate acts as his legal representative, binding her to his obligations including loan guarantees.

Key Disputed Contract Clauses

  • The Spousal Consent clause in the mortgage of the matrimonial home, which the administratrix (second defendant) claimed was forged. The court dismissed this defense, ruling that the administratrix, as legal representative of the deceased, could not unilaterally challenge the deceased's prior contractual commitments.
  • The Guarantee and Indemnity clauses in the credit facility agreement, signed by the second, third, and fourth defendants, which obligate them to repay the loan if the first defendant defaults. The court upheld these clauses as valid and binding.

Executor Name

  • DAAL.GREEN GASPER
  • DORIS MARTINE

Cited Statute

Probate and Administration of Estates Act

Executor Appointment

Administrator of the estate of Gasper John Minja (Deceased)

Judge Name

J. C. M. MWAMBEGELE

Passage Text

  • The evidence on record speaks loudly and clearly that the overdraft facility was granted to the first defendant. This is evidenced by a document titled CREDIT FACILITY: OVERDRAFT FACILITY OF TZS 50,000,000/= (NEW) which was tendered and admitted in evidence as Exh. P1. This document was signed on 28.05.2012 by Shazia Rashid and Rahim Kanji as, respectively, Relations Officer, Corporate Banking and Manager, Corporate Banking for the plaintiff bank on the one hand and the first defendant (signed by on its behalf by two Directors Alex Yakobo Kahela and Asteria Kahela) and the three guarantors; Alex Yakobo Kahela, Asteria Kahela and Gaspar John Minja. Likewise PW1 aptly testified on this. Luckily, the second defendants, through DW1, do not dispute this glaring fact.
  • AS PERSONAL GUARANTOR WE HEREBY ACCEPT THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THIS LETTER OF OFFER DTB/CB/1006/2012 DATED MAY 23RD, 2012... In addition to that, Gaspar John Minja and the third and fourth defendants executed Guarantee of Indemnity instruments which were tendered in evidence and admitted and marked Exh. P2 and P3 respectively. In Exh. P2, the late Gaspar John Minja... guaranteed to repay the overdraft facility given to the first defendant. So did the third and fourth defendants in Exh. P3.
  • The evidence on record shows without any iota of doubt that the loan facility was advanced to the first defendant and that it was guaranteed by the other defendants but no single cent was repaid to service it... I answer the third issue in the negative; that is, the defendants did not service the loan.

Beneficiary Classes

Other

Damages / Relief Type

  • 7% annual interest on the decreetal sum from judgment date (16th December 2016) to full satisfaction
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff
  • Payment of Tshs. 82,335,332/66 principal sum with accrued interest as of 30.09.2014