Mahakama Kuu yatoa uamuzi - Rais hakuvunja katiba kuongeza muda wa Jaji Prof. Juma kuendelea kuwa Jaji Mkuu wa Tanzania

Ngalikihinja said:
Kutoa hukumu dhidi ya mtu aliyekuteua ni almost haiwezekani..!!!
Click to expand...

Pia hawachapishi hukumu zao kwa wakati, hata mtandao wa TANZLII Home - TanzLII wa kieletroniki hauna hukumu zote za kesi mkakati :


16 April 2024
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

NGULI WA SHERIA WAKUTANA JUKWAA MOJA, UZINDUZI KITABU CHA MWAKA CHA KESI ZA UMMA 2022.. TANZANIA YEARBOOK PUBLIC LAW 2022

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aA9LchsP9uo

Majumuisho ya kesi mkakati zilizotolewa tangu miaka ya nyuma kuanzia 1983 hadi 2022 na maamuzi ya hukumu yakiangaziwa kwa kina kuona maamuzi ktk hukumu hizo

Ambazo Tanganyika Law Report walijitahidi kuchapisha zilizolenga kesi mashuhuri zilizowahi zilizosikilizwa Tanzania kwa ajili ya rejea kwa wadau wa sheria na umma kwa ujumla wanaotaka kufahamu kesi mkakati za masuala kama ya kisiasa, haki za binadamu, kijamii, kiuchumi.

Miaka 10 hadi sasa Tanganyika Law Report walikuwa hawajawahi kuchapa. Kazi data huwezi kuzipata katika mtandao wa TANZLII Home - TanzLII , hivyo kitabu hiki cha leo kitakuwa na mambo mengi mazito yaliyowahi kufika mbele ya mahakama zetu za Tanzania


Manguli wa sheria jaji mstaafu O Chande wa Tanzania,, Dr. Willy Mutunga – Chief Justice Republic of Kenya, (2011-2016) Jenerali Ulimwengu, prof. Issa Shivji na wengine wanatoa maoni ya haki za jinai mapungufu ya 2019 ya Plea Bargain, Kesi ya Mtikila, Makampuni, maslahi ya umma kuanzia 1983 hadi 2022 na kitakuwa kinatoka kila mara kuangali jinsi zinavyoamuliwa na manguli hawa wa Yearbook kukosoa inapobidi ....

1713343700959.png
 
RASILIMALI FEDHA KWA MHIMILI WA MAHAKAMA :

Contributions by Hon. Mohamed Omary Mchengerwa (49 total)​

Print
Makadirio ya Mapato na Matumizi ya Wizara ya Katiba na Sheria kwa Mwaka wa Fedha 2016/2017

MHE. MOHAMED O. MCHENGERWA: Mheshimiwa Naibu Spika, nianze kwa kuwapa pole Waheshimiwa Majaji na Mahakimu wote ambao wametajwa ndani ya Bunge hili ambao hawawezi kufika ndani ya Bunge hili kujitetea.

Kanuni zetu za kilatini Mheshimiwa Tundu Lissu atakuwa mwenyeji kwenye hili right to be heard, rule of law ambazo zinatuongoza anazifahamu vizuri, lakini nitambue mchango Jaji Mkuu Mheshimiwa Mohamed Othmani Chande, amefanya kazi nzuri sana ya kuhakikisha kwamba mahakama zetu zinakwenda vizuri kupunguza kesi za mahakama ambazo zilikuwa msongamano kwa muda mrefu sana. (Makofi)


Mheshimiwa Naibu Spika, kwa kweli naomba niwashukuru wapiga kura wangu wa Jimbo la Rufiji kwa kunielewa, wananifahamu kule Rufiji naitwa jembe, wengine wananiita sururu.

Ninashindwa kutambua uwezo wa kisheria au uwezo wa kufahamu wa ndugu yangu Tundu Lissu, kwa muda mrefu sana nimekuwa nikifuatilia mchakato na namna ambavyo akiendesha Bunge kwa muda mrefu sana kwa zaidi ya miaka sita nimekuwa nikimfuatilia.


Mheshimiwa Tundu Lissu namfananisha na mwandishi wa vitabu vya movie, aki-act mwaka 1940 ile movie ya Ndugu Charlie Champlin. Kuna movie moja, political satire, hii ukiifuatilia vizuri inaendelea kiundani, Mheshimiwa Tundu Lissu ni mtaalam mzuri wa kuiga kisiasa. (Makofi)


Mheshimiwa Naibu Spika, naomba nielezee uteuzi wa Mawaziri. Tunaongozwa hapa na Katiba yetu ya Jamhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania mwaka 1977, kama ambavyo imekuwa ikirekebishwa mara kwa mara.


Lakini katika Katiba hii, Ibara ya 54 na 55 inazungumzia kwa uwazi uteuzi wa Mawaziri. Ibara ya 56 inazungumzia mchakato mzima wa nani anaweza ku-qualify kuwa Waziri yaani kwamba mchakato huu, mtu atakuwa Waziri baada tu ya kuapishwa na Mheshimiwa Rais. (Makofi)


Mheshimiwa Naibu Spika, pia tunaongozwa na Sheria Na. 15 ya mwaka 1984 kama ambavyo Mheshimiwa Tundu Lissu ameizungumzia. Katika instrument of appointment ya Mawaziri ambayo Mheshimiwa Tundu Lissu amekuwa akiikazania kwa muda mrefu, siyo yeye tu hata Mwenyekiti wa Chama chao amekuwa akizungumza sana kuhusiana na sheria hii. (Makofi)


Mheshimiwa Naibu Spika, naomba Bunge hili lipate fursa ya kutufundisha kizungu inaonekana kuna shida ya kufahamu kizungu. Kwa mujibu wa Sura ya 299 ya sheria inayompa mamlaka Mheshimiwa Rais ya kuwaapisha pamoja na kuunda instrument yaani sheria hii inaitwa The Minister‟s (Discharge of Ministerial Functions) Act, Sura ya 299. Ukisoma kifungu cha tano cha sheria hii kinasema hivi ninaomba wataalam wa linguistic watusaidie ili waweze kumuelewesha huyu bwana. (Makofi)

Mheshimiwa Naibu Spika, kifungu cha tano cha sheria hii kinasema hivi; “The President may, may na shall ina maana kubwa sana kwa kizungu.


Wataalam wa linguistic watusaidie kumfahamisha may ina maana gani na shall ina maana gani. Siyo hivyo tu kifungu hiki kimekwenda moja kwa moja kuzungumzia kwamba from time to time by notice published in the Gazette specify the departments, business and other matters responsibility for which he has retained himself or he has assigned under his direction to any Minister, and may in that notice specify the effective date of the assumption of that responsibility. (Makofi)


Sheria hii inasema wazi ni wakati gani. Mheshimiwa Rais wakati wowote anaweza kutengeneza instrument kwa sababu sheria hii haija-specify ni wakati Mheshimiwa Rais anapaswa kutoa gazette la Rais. Sheria hii haitoi muda. Kwa hiyo, Mheshimiwa Rais hajavunja Katiba yoyote kwa mujibu wa sheria hii.


Mheshimiwa Naibu Spika, niende mbele zaidi, amezungumzia suala zima la ESCROW kuna Majaji walishutumiwa not kushtakiwa. Naomba nimkumbushe vifungu vya sharia vinasema allegation however strong it may it cannot convict the accused person, hata kama shutuma zitakuwa na uzito wa kiasi gani haziwezi kumtia hatiani mshitakiwa.


MHE. MOHAMED O. MCHENGERWA: Mheshimiwa Naibu Spika, kwa mujibu wa Katiba Ibara ya 112 inazungumzia Tume ya Utumishi wa Mahakama. Tume hizi zimepewa uwezo mkubwa wa kujadili nidhamu za Majaji na Mahakimu. Ibara ya 113 inakazania kwenye suala hili zima.


Bunge halina mamlaka juu ya Mahakama, hali kadhalika Serikali haina mamlaka dhidi ya Bunge na Mahakama. Kilichofanyika baada ya mapendekezo ya Bunge, Mheshimiwa Rais alikabidhiwa mapendekezo ya Bunge, kwa mujibu wa Ibara hii ya 113 Mheshimiwa Jaji Mkuu aliunda Tume, Tume ya Utumishi wa Mahakama ipo kwa mujibu wa Katiba.


Mheshimiwa Naibu Spika, kwa mujibu wa Tume Rais hana mamlaka ya kumfukuza Jaji isipokuwa tu Ibara ya 113 inampa mamlaka Mheshimiwa Rais iwapo itaonekana Jaji amefanya utovu wa nidhamu na maadali baada ya Tume ya Utumishi wa Mahakama kutoa mapendekezo yake. Jambo hili lilifanyika na Waheshimiwa Majaji hawa baada ya kupitia na jambo kubwa ambalo lilifanyika, Mheshimiwa Jaji Mkuu pamoja na Tume hii walitumia the Code of Ethics for Judicial Officers, pia kwa kuzingatia the independence of the judiciary walizingatia haya yote kimsingi na ilionekana kabisa wazi kwamba hakuna jambo lolote lililofanyika na taarifa hii ipo mbele ya Mheshimiwa Rais kwa tafiti zangu binafsi. (Makofi)


Mheshimiwa Naibu Spika, nitaenda kwa haraka. Kuhusu Mahakama ya Mafisadi imekuwa ikipigiwa kelele sana, sasa sijui kwa nini ndugu zetu hawa wanakuwa waoga, wanaogopa nini? Kwa mujibu wa taratibu na sheria kinachoweza kufanyika ni kufanya mabadiliko ya Sheria hii ya Uhujumu Uchumi ambayo Mheshimiwa Tundu Lissu ameizungumza hapa, Sura ya 200 imezungumzia kiundani kabisa.

Division hizi za Mahakama Kuu zipo nyingi Tundu Lissu anafahamu, tunayo Division ya Ardhi, tunayo Division ya Biashara, tunayo Division ya Kazi, kwa mujibu wa taratibu na sheria hii kwa kufanya mabadiliko Mheshimiwa Jaji Mkuu anaweza akaunda special court kwa kupitia muundo huu ambao nimeuzungumzia hapa ambao inakua division ya Mahakama Kuu hakuna tatizo lolote wala Katiba haijavunjwa kutokana na hili. (Makofi)
Mheshimiwa Naibu Spika, kwa haraka nizungumzie Muungano.


Mheshimiwa Tundu Lissu anasahau kwamba Muungano wetu uliasisiwa na Waasisi hawa wawili, Mwenyezi Mungu azirehemu roho zao. Kupitia Sheria Na. 4 ya mwaka 1964 iliondoa haya matatizo yote ambayo anazungumzia Mheshimiwa Tundu Lissu. Hata Mwenyekiti wa Marais Afrika anatambua mchango wa Tanzania katika kukomboa Bara la Afrika, siyo kwenda kusababisha Mapinduzi ya Zanzibar, Tanzania ilifanya kazi kubwa Afrika nzima siyo huko.


Mimi nilichotegemea ni kwamba kwa Wapinzani wanapaswa kuleta hoja ya kusaidia Wizara hii ya Katiba na Sheria. Siyo kuanza kuzungumza maneno ambayo ni ya uchochezi maneno ambayo hayafai. (Makofi)


Mheshimiwa Naibu Spika, nilitegemea Mheshimiwa Tundu Lissu hapa angekuja na akatuambia ni namna gani tutaweza kulizungumzia Fungu Na. 40 ambalo Mheshimiwa Waziri hajalizungumzia, ni namna gani Mahakama itaweza kupatiwa fedha zake kwa mujibu wa taratibu na suala hili halijazungumzwa na Mheshimiwa Waziri.


Lakini pia nilitegemea watu wa Upinzani wangezungumzia kuhusu Fungu Na. 55 la Tume ya Haki za Binadamu na Utawala Bora ili tume hii iweze kuongezewa fedha.
Ninaishauri Serikali yangu ya Chama cha Mapinduzi kuweza kuona mchakato wa kuongezea fedha Tume hii ya Haki za Binadamu na Utawala Bora.


Mheshimiwa Naibu Spika, ninaomba pia niongelee suala la Mahakimu. Mahakimu wetu wanafanya kazi ngumu, nawapongeza sana kwa kuchapa kazi Mahakimu na Majaji wote Tanzania. Ninaomba Serikali hii ya Chama cha Mapinduzi kuona uwezekano wa kuwaongezea mishahara Mahakimu wetu, pia kuangalia kuwapatia non- practicing allowance pamoja na rent assistance kwa ajili ya kuwapunguza ukali wa maisha.


Mheshimiwa Naibu Spika, tofauti ya mishahara kati ya Mahakimu na Majaji ni kubwa sana, ninaomba Mheshimiwa Waziri Tume ya Utumishi wa Mahakama kuweza kufikiria uwezekano wa kupunguza ukubwa wa tofauti ya mshahara kati ya Hakimu na Jaji. (Makofi)
Mheshimiwa Naibu Spika, kwa haraka haraka Tundu Lissu pia amezungumzia kuhusiana na Mkuu wa Wilaya kutoa maelekezo.

Mheshimiwa Naibu Spika, naunga mkono hoja. Ahsante sana.

Source : Bunge Polis
 
bagamoyo said:
23 April 2024

WAKILI ATETEA MAJAJI, AFUNGUKA TUHUMA ZA KUHONGA MAJAJI " WANATAKA KUCHAFUA TANZANIA"


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f12YUOhDPrg
Click to expand...


KESI KUBWA KUBWA KABISA MABENKI YA NJE MAURITIUS NA DUBAI ZIMEHUSIKA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC
OF TANZANIA
(COMMERCIAL DIVISION)
AT DAR-ES-SALAAM
COMMERCIAL CASE NO. 105 OF 2021
NAS HAULIERS LIMITED............................... 1ST PLAINTIFF
EVEREST FREIGHT LIMITED........................ 2ND PLAINTIFF
TANGA PETROLEUM..................................... 3RD PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
EQUITY BANK (T) LIMITED....................... 1ST DEFENDANT
EQUITY BANK (K) LIMITED......................2ND DEFENDANT
JUDGEMENT
Last Order: 07/02/2023
Date of Judgment 19/04/23
NANGELA, J.
This is a long judgement! As I was preparing it, I was
reminded of this poetic tone concerning a judgement, a lamentation
perhaps, like that of one of the old prophets, jotted down by A. P.
Pandey, “A long Judgement” Journal of the Indian Institute, Vol. 25
(4), (1983), pp.588-594. He wrote, and I quote:
“A JUDGEMENT,
Of a court,
As to number of pages,

Page 1

READ MORE : Nas Hauliers Ltd & Others vs Equity Bank (T) Ltd & another (Commercial Case 105 of 2021) [2023] TZHCComD 110 (19 April 2023)
 
bagamoyo said:
22 September 2023
Masijala ya Mahakama Kuu
Dar es Salaam

Kesi namba 7 ya 2023 ya Humphrey Simon Malenga dhidi ya Mwanasheria Mkuu wa Serikali leo imetolewa hukumu yake .

Humphrey Simon Malenga alifungua kesi, ili Mahakama Kuu itafsiri kama rais alivunja katiba au la kwa muuongezea muda wa kubaki ofisini baada ya jaji mkuu Profesa Ibrahimu Juma kufikisha muda wa kustaafu wa miaka 65.

Katika hukumu hiyo ya kurasa 33 Mahakama Kuu imejiridhisha kuwa mheshimiwa rais hakuvunja katiba ya jamhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania kwa kumuongezea jaji wa mahakama ya rufaa ambaye ni jaji mkuu Professor Ibrahimu Juma kuendelea kubaki ofisini

Jaji G.N.Isaya amesema nafasi ya kukata rufaa ipo dhidi ya hukumu iliyotolewa leo ya kutupilia mbali kesi iliyofunguliwa na Humphrey Simon Malenga.
......

Soma hukumu nzima source :
Having determined the issues above, I find the petition without
merit. It stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order accordingly. (
signed
G.N.Isaya
Judge

22.09.2023.

Court: Judgment delivered in open court this 22nd day of September, 2023 in the presence of Mr. Ipilinga Panya and Aliko Harry Mwamanenge,
Learned Advocates for the petitioner. Ms. Victoria Lugndo, State Attorney, for the Respondent, Ms. Catherine Shenkunde (B/C), and Hon. Chilemba
Chikawe (JLA). /

G.N.Isaya
Judge

22.09.2023
Right of Appeal fully explained. /
G.N.Isaya Judge
22.09.2023
Page 33 of 33


Humphrey Simon Malenga versus The Hon. Attorney Genaral (MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL CAUSE NO. 07 OF 2023) [2023] TZHC 7 (22 September 2023)​


Pia soma: Mwanasheria afungua kesi kupinga Jaji Mkuu kubaki kazini baada ya muda wa kustaafu kupita
Click to expand...
Mlitegemea nini?
 
bagamoyo said:
23 April 2024

WAKILI ATETEA MAJAJI, AFUNGUKA TUHUMA ZA KUHONGA MAJAJI " WANATAKA KUCHAFUA TANZANIA"


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f12YUOhDPrg
Click to expand...



IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA
(COMMERCIAL DIVISION)
AT PAR ES SALAAM
COMMERCIAL CASE NO.105 OF 2020
STATE OIL TANZANIA LIMITED.......................................... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
EQUITY BANK TANZANIA LIMITED............................. 1st DEFENDANT
EQUITY BANK KENYA LIMITED.................................. 2nd DEFENDANT
Date of Last Order: 02/08/2021
Date of Judgement: 01/10/2021
JUDGEMENT
MAGOIGA, J.
The Plaintiff, STATE OIL TANZANIA LIMITED by way of plaint instituted the
instant suit against the above named Defendants praying for judgement and
decree in the following orders, namely:
a. A declaration that the Defendants have breached three banking
facilities which Defendants advanced to the Plaintiff, the first one dated
22nd March, 2017, the second one dated 30ln June, 2017 and the third
one dated 16th October, 2017;
b. A declaration that the Plaintiff has fully paid and satisfied the three
banking facilities, dated 22nd March, 2017, 30lh June, 2017 and 16th
October, 2017 which Defendants advanced to the Plaintiff

Page 1

READ MORE : State Oil Tanzania Limited vsEquity Bank Tanzania Limited and Another (Commercial Case 105 of 2020) [2021] TZHCComD 3351 (1 October 2021)
 
bagamoyo said:
23 April 2024

WAKILI ATETEA MAJAJI, AFUNGUKA TUHUMA ZA KUHONGA MAJAJI " WANATAKA KUCHAFUA TANZANIA"


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f12YUOhDPrg
Click to expand...


Continental Reliable
1713888739105.jpeg

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA
COMMERCIAL DIVISION
AT DAR ES SALAAM
MISC. COMMERCIAL APPLICATION NO.24 OF 2023
(ARISING FOM COMMERCIAL CASE NO.16 OF 2023)
CONTINENTAL RELIABLE CLEARING (T) LIMITED......APPLICANT
VERSUS
EQUITY BANK TANZANIA LIMITED.....................1ST RESPONDENT
EQUITY BANK KENYA LIMITED.........................2ND RESPONDENT
RULING
Date of Last Order: 09/03/2023
Date of Ruling: 28/04/2023
AGATHO, J.:
Under certificate of urgency the applicant, CONTINENTAL RELIABLE CLEARING (T)
LIMITED by way of chamber summons made under the provisions of Order XXXVII Rule
1(a) & 4, Order XLIII Rule 2 and Section 68(c) & (e) of the Civil Procedure Code, Act
[CAP 33 R.E 2019] instituted the instant application against the above-named
respondents jointly and severally praying for the following orders, to wit:
EX-PARTE
i. That the honorable Court be pleased to make a finding that sufficient grounds

summons accompanied with affidavits the 1st and 2nd respondents opposed the grant of the
application through counter affidavit deponed by Ms. Dorothea Rutta for 1st and the 2nd
Respondents and they filed a joint supplementary counter affidavit deponed Mr. Rober
Gatimu Kibiti both stating the reasons why this application should not be granted.
Before we delve into the determination of the application, it is worthwhile to sketch
the background of the application albeit briefly as gathered from the records. It is alleged
that sometimes in early 2013 to 2017 the 1st and 2nd Respondents being co-lenders entered
into loan agreement with the applicant. The said credit facilities were secured by mortgage,
debenture and chattel mortgages. The Applicant failed to adhere to the terms and conditions
of the agreement and was in breach of the contract. The 1st and 2nd respondents issued
letters of demands and default notices as recovery procedure to be paid the unpaid USD
10,139,664.95. That state of affair culminated into institution of Commercial Case No 16 of
2023 for declaration that the plaintiff has cleared all its credit facilities and the declaration
that the demand of payment of the USD 10,139,664.95 as an outstanding loan balance is
invalid. Now he has come to this court armed with the instant application seeking for
injunctive order to restrain the respondents from disposing the applicant’s mortgaged
properties pending determination of the Commercial Case No 16 of 2023 hence, this ruling.
On 27th day of February 2023 this application as noted above was preferred among
others, under certificate of urgency, was brought to my attention and on that date, I refused
to entertain ex-parte prayers instead I ordered that the applicant to immediately serve both
respondents, and if wish, to file a counter affidavit. However, considering the application

PAGE 3

and void because the said amount of USD 900,000 are fictitious and does not exist, the 2nd
Respondent is not licensed to carry banking business in Tanzania and that funds were not
disbursed. Expounding on the above allegation the learned counsel insisted that the
applicant is seeking court intervention so that it could declare that banking facilities dated
29th May,2018, 3rd November,2021 and 19th January,2022 are null and void, a declaration
that all mortgage executed in favour of the respondents are null and void for want of specific
approval. To cement his argument, he cited the case of State Oil Tanzania Limited vs
Equity Bank Tanzania Limited and Equity Bank Kenya Limitec, Commercial Case
No 105 of 2020 (unreported) in which the court held that, for the second defendant to
be secured by mortgage there should be specific approval from the commissioner of land
which is not there in this case. He took the view that on the basis of all this, there is a prima
facie case worth determination.
Submitting in respect of irreparable loss, the counsel’s argument is that the
intended sale will inflict an irreparable loss on the part of applicant if allowed to proceed as
there is no way the applicant will be refunded and hence stands to suffer irreparable loss
because the 2nd respondent will recover and move to Kenya which is outside the jurisdiction
of this court. In the circumstance the applicant will not be able to retrieve the funds from
Kenya. Submitting further the learned counsel submitted that, the respondents have not
shown how the loan amount arose stage by stage as such the said outstanding amount
remains vague. In addition to that the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, the
respondents have issued 60 days’ notice in which if the application is not granted the
applicant will be evicted from the property the act which cannot

Page 5

READ MORE :
Source : Continental Reliable Clearing (T) Ltd vs Equity Bank (T) Ltd & Another (Misc. Commercial Application 24 of 2023) [2023] TZHCComD 123 (28 April 2023)
 
Inside10 said:
Mlitegemea nini?
Click to expand...

Wakili msomi anatuambia mikopo ya nje ambayo haijasajiliwa Tanzania haistahili kulipwa ... pia BOT Benki Kuu ya Tanzania inakazia hivyo katika ushahidi wake ktk mojawapo ya kesi hizi kubwa sita za kimkataba ambazo wakili msomi anasema kesi hizo zinafaa kuwa rejea kwa mawakili wachanga wanaoibukia kujifunza kuhusu mikataba na pia kwa wasomaji makini kwa mfano sisi watu wa kawaida tulio JamiiForums kujielimisha mambo yanakwendaje katika fani hii mahiri ya sheria na uwakili mahakamani
 
bagamoyo said:
23 April 2024

WAKILI ATETEA MAJAJI, AFUNGUKA TUHUMA ZA KUHONGA MAJAJI " WANATAKA KUCHAFUA TANZANIA"
Click to expand...

How Equity Bank lost Sh5.3bb in dubious loan deal

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f12YUOhDPrg

How Equity Bank lost Sh5.3bn in dubious loan deal​

November 29, 2023


Equity Bank lost Sh5.3 billion in Tanzania through a controversial loan scheme that saw the Kenyan lender and a Dubai firm lie to regulators that they were financing a mega steel rods project.

The High Court in Dar es Salam has accused Equity of deceiving regulators that it issued letters of credit to four Tanzania firms for receiving steel roads from Dubai’s Lamar Trading DMCC and edible and crude oil from Singapore’s Numora Trading PTE.

The Judge reckons that Equity never issued letters of credit—a guarantee from a bank to settle defaulted suppliers’ dues—and instead acted as an agent in a deal that saw Numora and Lamar offer $35.16 million (Sh5.3 billion) in cash to Tanzanian firms despite not being recognised as financiers.


The court has declared the deal null and void in a decision that has seen the Kenyan lender lose its claim of Sh5.3 billion.

It has ordered Equity Bank to pay Sh60.9 million in damages to the four firms, State Oil Tanzania, Nas Hauliers, Everest Freight and Tanga Petroleum for pursuit of the irregular loan.

In 2017, Equity Bank Kenya acted as a guarantor for State Oil Tanzania, which borrowed $18.64 million (Sh2.8 billion) from Dubai’s Lamar Trading DMCC.

In the paperwork, Equity Bank falsely stated that State Oil was purchasing steel rods worth Sh2.8 billion from Lamar, court papers show.

Equity Bank massaged the paperwork to avoid scrutiny from regulators, who would have flagged the deal because Lamar is registered as a trader, not a lender.

The bank emerged from the deal as one issuing letters of credit for the transaction where State Oil was purchasing steel rods worth $18.64 million (Sh2.8 billion) from Lamar on credit.

In reality, the Equity Bank was cited as an agent by the judge, who declared that the letters of credit were non-existent.


Everest Freight​


The same script followed the Nas Hauliers, Everest Freight and Tanga Petroleum deal.

Equity Bank stated its role as issuance of letters of credit guaranteeing a $16.275 million (Sh2.4 billion) loan from Singapore’s Numora Trading PTE in 2019.

Just like Lamar, Numora is registered as a commodity dealer in food, edible and crude oil.

“Since the monies were not deposited in Tanzania by the lender, the regulator cannot allow repayment without first being brought to light about the underlying contract upon which the standby letter of credit (SLBC)/letter of credit (LC) is based as well as proof of fulfilment of the SBLC/LC of prior agreements,” Dar-es-Salaam Judge John Nangela ruled in an April judgement recently made public.

“All such concerns negatively impact on the defendants (Equity Bank Tanzania and Equity Bank Kenya), leave alone the fact that the respective SBLC/LC was not, as stated earlier, issued by Equity Bank Kenya,” the judge added.

The borrowers were all Equity Bank Tanzania clients. They had sought to borrow and offset other burdening loans.

But Tanzanian laws bar such huge amounts being lent to a single borrower, capping the lending to between 25 percent and five percent of core capital. In December, the Tanzanian subsidiary could lend a maximum of Sh1.12 billion to a single customer.

Equity Bank Tanzania referred the firms to its parent in Kenya counting on its outsized balance sheet.

Equity Bank Kenya channelled the firms to Nisk Capital, an East Africa focused investment bank and financial advisory firm Nairobi-based, which in turn led the companies to Lamar and Numora.

The side deal bound Equity to pay Lamar and Numora in the event the Tanzanian firms defaulted.

The loan was not listed with the Bank of Tanzania. Lamar and Numora wired funds to Equity Bank Kenya, which opened escrow accounts in Nairobi.

The Tanzanian firms defaulted, forcing Equity to pay Lamar and Numora in the hope of recovering the funds through auctioning security provided for the issuance of the letters of credit.

But in two judgments, Tanzania’s courts dashed Equity Bank’s hopes by ruling in favour of the borrowers, who separately sued the lender to stop the auction of their assets.

In both cases, the judges ruled that Equity Bank was just an agent, and had no right to demand loan repayment.

The judges argued that Lamar Commodity Trading DMCC and Numora Trading PTE should demand Sh5.3 billion as the lenders.

In April, Judge Nangela ordered Equity Bank to pay $300,000 (Sh45.7 million) to three firms – Nas Hauliers, Everest Freight and Tanga Petroleum – in damages for the pursuit of the debt.

Judge Stephen Magoiga had in October 2021 ordered that the lender pay State Oil Tanzania damages of $100,000 (Sh15.2 million) in 2021.

Judge Nangela in April said Equity risked landing in trouble if it submitted doctored documents to the Bank of Tanzania in pursuit of recovering funds lost in the loan deal Numora had with Nas Hauliers, Everest Freight and Tanga Petroleum.


Tanzanian firms​


The court judgments may have sealed Equity Bank’s fate as the lender has been blocked from pursuing the Tanzanian firms and ordered to release cars and land it targeted for auction to recover Sh5.3 billion.

Stuck with the bills, Equity Bank Kenya paid $18.64 million (Sh2.8 billion) to Lamar on January 28, 2020, in line with the standby letter of credit.

For the Nas Hauliers transaction, Equity Bank Kenya released $16,275,000 (Sh2.48 billion) to Numora credit after the default.

The court papers do not specify when the amount was paid but show that payment was made to Numora’s account at Standard Chartered Bank Malaysia by Equity Bank through Citi Bank New York.

Lamar is one of the companies that bagged controversial multi-billion-shilling deals to supply the Kenya National Trading Corporation (KNTC) with farm inputs under President William Ruto’s subsidised fertiliser programme, which is aimed at lowering food production costs.

The firm has a Sh2.7 billion deal to supply the KNTC with 30,000 tonnes of NPK fertiliser.

State Oil Tanzania surrendered six title deeds for land in Dar-es-Salaam, Dodoma, Mwanza and Ruvuma. The firm also surrendered ownership documents for 30 Volvo trucks and 30 fuel tankers.

Nas Hauliers, Everest Freight and Tanga Petroleum have similar shareholding and directorship. They provided six title deeds for land in Shinyanga and Dar-es-Salaam as security. Both loans were to be offset within five years.

Interest on the loans was to be paid in advance, with the Tanzanian firms offsetting the principal in five equal instalments each year.

In State Oil Tanzania’s loan, the standby letters of credit issued indicated that the firm was purchasing 23,300 tonnes of hot steel in coils and cold rolled steel plates.

On December 10, 2018, Lamar disbursed $17.44 million (Sh2.65 billion) to Equity Bank Kenya to cater for State Oil Tanzania’s loan. Lamar had deducted $1.2 million (Sh1.8 billion) to cater for interest for the first year.

Equity Bank then opened an escrow account in Nairobi, with the lender and State Oil Tanzania as the joint owners.


State Oil Tanzania​


In court, however, State Oil Tanzania claimed that Equity Bank Kenya was in full control of the escrow account. Equity Bank Kenya then paid off State Oil Tanzania’s loans.

State Oil Tanzania at the time owed Equity Bank Tanzania $10.183 million (Sh1.5 billion), ABC Bank $4.253 (Sh647 million), FNB $567,688 (Sh86.3 million) and TIB 332,769 (Sh50.6 million).

In the State Oil Tanzania deal, Equity Bank Kenya received $372,800 (Sh56.7 million) in commission. Nisk Capital received $750,000 (Sh114.1 million) in commission.

The $736,899 (Sh112.3 million) balance was paid into State Oil Tanzania’s account with Equity Bank Tanzania.

For Nas Hauliers and its sister firms, Lamar claimed to have surrendered all its rights under the deal to another company, Singapore-registered Numora Trading PTE.

On June 4, 2019, Numora Trading PTE disbursed $14,123,527 (Sh2.15 billion) to Equity Bank. The Singaporean firm had deducted $2.151 million (Sh327.9 million) to cater for interest for the first year.

Equity Bank Kenya opened an escrow account in Nairobi, with it and Nas Hauliers listed as the joint owners.

Nas Hauliers owed $8.87 million (Sh1.35 billion) to Equity Bank Tanzania, $1.49 million (Sh227 million) to Amana Bank and $450,000 (Sh68.4 million) to UBL Bank.

In this deal, Equity Bank Kenya enjoyed a commission of $390,600 (Sh59.5 million). Equity Bank Tanzania received $2 million (Sh304 million) for operational costs.

The $978,586 (Sh149.1 million) balance was paid into Nas Hauliers’ account with Equity Bank Tanzania.

After one year, the firms were set to start offsetting the principal amount. This meant that State Oil Tanzania should have paid $3.728 million (Sh568.2 million) in December 2019.

Nas Hauliers was due for a $3.255 million (Sh496.1 million) payment in June 2020.

Because the loans could not be registered with the Bank of Tanzania, there was no credit reference bureau in Tanzania indicating that the four firms had defaulted on any borrowings.

In court, State Oil Tanzania argued that Lamar breached the contract by sending money to Equity Bank Kenya.

Director Nilesh Suchak also argued that Equity Bank Kenya’s actions amounted to operating illegally in Tanzania and veiling the transaction by using Equity Bank Tanzania’s name and face.

In court, Equity Bank maintained that it issued letters of credit to help the Tanzanian firms secure the loans.

The letters of credit, the bank argued, were issued after the Tanzanian companies surrendered various assets as security.

Credit: Source link

© 2022 hcntimes.com - all rights reseved
 
bagamoyo said:
23 April 2024

WAKILI ATETEA MAJAJI, AFUNGUKA TUHUMA ZA KUHONGA MAJAJI " WANATAKA KUCHAFUA TANZANIA"


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f12YUOhDPrg
Click to expand...


Wakili msomi Mr Frank Mwalongo akijenga hoja mbele ya Jaji Mahakama kuu kuwa kampuni hii ya kigeni ...itakuwa ngumu na mlolongo mrefu kudai haki na pia .... ikizingatiwa kuwa kiini cha kesi ni uwepo wa ulaghai ktk deni tata kisheria ambalo mteja wetu ZAS amelipinga ..



IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA
(COMMERCIAL DIVISION)
AT PAR ES SALAAM
COMMERCIAL APPLICATION NO. 211 OF 2022
(Arising from Commercial Cause No. 103 of2022)
Z.A.S INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED................... APPLICANT
VERSUS
EQUITY BANK TANZANIA LIMITED................ 1st RESPONDENT
EQUITY BANK KENYA LIMITED........................ 2nd RESPONDENT
RULING
Date of last order: 04/04/2023
Date of ruling: 20/04/2023
AGATHO, J.:
This ruling stems from the application by the applicant for injunctive
order to restrain the respondents from disposing the applicant's mortgaged
properties pending determination of the main suit filed in the court. The
application was by the way of chambers summons supported by the affidavit
of Amit Babubhai Ladwa, the director of the applicant. The respondents'
attempted to protest the application through the counter affidavit deponed by
Isabela Maganga, the Managing Director of the 1st respondent. However, the
court ruled the said counter affidavit to be defective following objection raised
by the applicant's counsel. Hence, the application is unopposed. But injunctive
order being a matter of law cannot be granted without justification as
required by the law. The court therefore ordered th

PAGE 1


Submission by applicant's counsel Mr Frank Mwalongo was that he
firstly adopted the skeleton arguments filed on 31/03/2023 to form part of his
submission. Thereafter, he submitted on the three pre-conditions for grant of
temporary injunction which he claimed to have been fully met. On the three
pre-conditions he began by submitting on the existence of prima facie case.
To him the highlight on primafacie case,is the breach of banker's duty and
fraud as pleaded in the plaint raising serious issues calling for determination
by this honourable court. Subject to evidence at later stage but at this stage
there is primafacie case on the face of the pleadings in particular the plaint.
The other pre-condition is irreparable loss. According to Mr Mwalongo
there is possibility of the applicant to suffer irreparable loss because the
recovery process may entail sale of the landed properties. And if that happens
there will be an eviction of the applicant and guarantors of the applicant from
both commercial and residential properties. The learned counsel argued that,
the eviction from the commercial and residential properties is a serious
harassment and embarrassment which cannot be compensated on monetary
terms. On this point he referred to the two decisions he cited in the skeleton
argument where this court has graded eviction as causing loss that cannot be
compensated in monetary terms.
Back to the irreparable loss, Mr Mwalongo submitted that the 2nd
respondent is a foreign company in which if recovery takes place the proceeds
of sale will be repatriated outside Tanzania. He was of the view that


PAGE 2


restitution of the applicant by retrieving the proceeds of sale from a foreign
company is extremely difficult. That may be counted as a loss if at all there is
notinjunction, and the respondents proceed with recovery from the collaterals.
More on irreparable loss, on the third front, Mr Mwalongo submitted that the
main suit is based on fraud and the vague existence of the facility amount. In
which case if recovery continues the applicant will be a victim of illegal
recovery, which means it will not only cause irreparable loss but also will be
harmful on the applicant.
The learned counsel for the applicant went on submitting that one of
the prayers in the suit is the unlawfulness of the mortgages registered for
securing foreign loan without specific approval of the commissioner for lands.
This court has in one of the decisions (State Oil Tanzania Ltd v Equity
Bank Tanzania and Equity Bank Kenya Limited, Commercial Case No.
105 of 2020 HCCD nullified as mortgage to secure foreign land without
approval of the commissioner for lands. In which case if the recovery
proceeds, then it will be an issue surrounded with illegality.
The third pre-condition as per Mr Mwalongo's submission is a balance of
convenience as it appears in the skeleton arguments. He submitted that,
temporary injunction is an equitable remedy which is intended to preserve the
pre-dispute state until the dispute is determined. He tried to impress that this
suit being based on allegation of fraud and deceit, equity demands that the
issue of fraud be determined first before recovery proceeds. And two, the .....

PAGE 3

READ MORE : Source : Z. A. S Investment Co. Ltd vs Equity Bank (T) Ltd & Another (Commercial Application No. 211 of 2022) [2023] TZHCComD 187 (20 April 2023)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar Discussions

Back
Top Bottom
Forums
New posts
Post thread
Back