Automated Summary
Key Facts
Exim Bank sought default judgment against four defendants (Trulite Investment Ltd, Mkuu General Traders Ltd, Milan Mahendra Patel, and Chandini Sailesh Shah) for unpaid monies from two credit facilities extended to 2000 Industries Limited, a company under liquidation. The plaintiff claimed Tzs. 16,938,919,376.61 and Usd 2,098,774.55 as of March 31, 2019, but the court dismissed the case due to insufficient evidence, citing use of photocopies, incomplete bank statements, and lack of required certifications under the Tanzania Evidence Act.
Transaction Type
Credit Facility Agreements for Tzs. 1.69 billion and USD 2.09 million
Issues
- The court questioned the admissibility of all annexed documents as photocopies without justification under Sections 66-68 of the Tanzania Evidence Act. This rendered the affidavit insufficient to support the claim, as primary evidence (originals) was not provided.
- The court dismissed the case because the affidavit by Mr. Mwasaga failed to detail the credit facilities, interest accruals, or how the claimed amounts were calculated. This omission prevented the court from verifying the plaintiff's claims under the Evidence Act.
- The court evaluated whether Exim Bank's application for default judgment against the four defendants was valid under Rule 22 (1) of the High Court (Commercial Division) Procedure Rules. The judgment dismissed the case due to the plaintiff's failure to prove its claim, citing procedural and evidentiary deficiencies.
- The court found the bank statements (Exim-18, 19, 20) lacking critical details like account numbers, branch information, and certification. These statements were deemed unreliable as they lacked proper authentication under Sections 78-79 of the Evidence Act.
Holdings
For the pointed reasons I find the plaintiff to have failed to prove her claim to warrant this Court to enter judgment in default in her favour as prayed. The suit is thus dismissed with no order as to costs.
Remedies
The suit was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Contract Value
1000000000.00
Legal Principles
- The Court ruled that photocopies of documents (Exim-1 to Exim-20) were inadmissible as primary evidence under section 66 of the Evidence Act, and bank statements lacked proper authentication under sections 78 and 79.
- The plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proof under sections 110, 111, and 112 of the Tanzania Evidence Act, as the annexed documents lacked originality and sufficient authentication.
Cited Statute
- High Court Commercial Division Rules
- Tanzania Evidence Act
- Civil Procedure Code
Judge Name
P. S. FIKIRINI
Passage Text
- For the pointed reasons I find the plaintiff to have failed to prove her claim to warrant this Court to enter judgment in default in her favour as prayed. The suit is thus dismissed with no order as to costs.
- It is the cardinal principle of evidence that the one who alleges must prove.
Damages / Relief Type
Compensatory Damages for Tzs. 16,938,919,376.61 and Usd 2,098,774.55