EADB sues law firm (REX attorneys ...formerly MRN &M) for breach of contract | JamiiForums | The Home of Great Thinkers

Dismiss Notice
You are browsing this site as a guest. It takes 2 minutes to CREATE AN ACCOUNT and less than 1 minute to LOGIN

EADB sues law firm (REX attorneys ...formerly MRN &M) for breach of contract

Discussion in 'Habari na Hoja mchanganyiko' started by deny_all, Oct 13, 2011.

  1. deny_all

    deny_all JF-Expert Member

    Oct 13, 2011
    Joined: Feb 24, 2008
    Messages: 428
    Likes Received: 5
    Trophy Points: 35
    Hii habari (kutoka DailyNews) somehow inaonyesha uzembe wa law firm MRN & M now known as REX attorneys. Mtakumbuka hawa ndio walikuwa lawyers wa Tanesco kwenye kesi na Dowans na matokeo yake tunayajua, kiuzembe uzembe Tanescao walishindwa kesi na sasa wanatakiwa kulipa mabilioni ya shillingi kwa Dowans.

    Nimeattach document inayoonyesha background from MRN & M to REX attorneys, source yake ni hii hapa: About REX

    Soma habari yenyewe kwa undani........na nadhani itakuwa vizuri kufuatiilia kesi hii mpaka mwisho wake.

    Thursday October 13, 2011
    Local News
    EADB sues law firm for breach of contract

    By FAUSTINE KAPAMA, 12th October 2011 @ 20:00, Total Comments: 0, Hits: 289

    THE East African Development Bank (EADB) has sued a law firm, MRN&M, demanding over 100bn/- for breach of contract, for its failure to provide proper legal services.

    According to the suit, the law firm failed to provide proper legal services in a dispute involving the EADB and a transportation company, M/S Blueline Enterprises. As a result, the bank suffered loss and damages.

    Sometime during the contractual dispute with Blueline Company, the EADB had hired the services of MRN&M whose full name is Maajar, Rwechungura, Nguluma and Makani Advocates, to represent them.

    "In a breach of contract, MRN&M failed to exercise diligence in carrying out the plaintiff's (EADB) instructions," reads part of plaint of the suit.

    Sometime between 1990 and 1992, the bank provided a loan of about four million US dollars to M/S Blueline company. The company however, defaulted the loan.

    This prompted the bank to appoint a receiver manager. But as the receiver was about to take over the assets of the company, the latter petitioned the bank's move before the High Court, seeking arbitration.

    The High Court granted the company's application and issued an injunction against the bank's move. The parties appointed the late Chief Justice Francis Nyalali and alternate sole arbitrator A.T. Mwakyusa to mediate them.

    Justice Nyalali ruled in favour of the bank and ordered the company to pay 13,754,962 US dollars, being the balance of the principal amount and interest. The company applied for orders to set aside the award.

    On July 30, 2003, Judge Bernard Luanda quashed and set aside the award and ordered the parties to proceed with arbitration proceedings before Mwakyusa. The company lodged a counterclaim for damages suffered following illegal receivership of its properties.

    On August 31, 2005, Arbitrator Mwakyusa published his award in which he directed the EADB to pay Blueline 61,386,853 US dollars and interests at the rate of 14 per cent per annum, on the sum from the date of award to the date of settlement. The award was filed in court on September 13, 2005.

    Pursuant to instruction by the bank, the MRN&M legal firm agreed to draft and later filed before the court a petition, seeking orders to set aside the award in question. However, Judge Augustine Shangwa 'struck out' the petition on June 29, 2006.

    According to the plaint of the suit, the petition was rejected by the court for failure to annex to the said petition submissions and a copy of the Award certified by the EADB or its advocates to be a true copy, which was contrary to Arbitration Rules.

    "By reason of the petition having been struck out, the plaintiff was unable and thereby lost the opportunity to file a petition to set aside the said Award within the primary limitation period prescribed by the Limitation Act, 1971, namely sixty days," the plaint of the suit says.

    Therefore, the EADB is asking the court to declare, among others, that the law firm is liable and should compensate the bank for the loss of opportunity to the petition.

    The bank is also seeking an order for the law firm to pay damages amounting to 61,386,853 US dollars representing the amount of the award and other required costs.


    Attached Files:

  2. Ngambo Ngali

    Ngambo Ngali JF-Expert Member

    Oct 13, 2011
    Joined: Apr 17, 2009
    Messages: 3,194
    Likes Received: 134
    Trophy Points: 160
    Hatari kubwa sana kwa huduma za kisheria nchini.

    Ni kitu cha kawaida kwingineko lakini hapa kwetu ni kigeni na athari zake ni kuwa mawakili itabidi waweke insurance cover za professional indemnity. Kwa jinsi ambavyo sheria haiko katika mstari ulionyooka kuna hatari ya insurance firms kufanya premiums ziwe juu na mtumiaji wa huduma za kisheria ndiye atakayelipia na hivyomkufanya huduma hizo ziwe kwa wachache.