Tanzania high court orders trader to pay CRDB Bank Sh617m

Summary

• CRDB Bank has been pursuing recovery of the money after the firm failed to settle the loan within the agreed time frame.

By Bernard James

More by this Author

Dar es Salaam. The High Court in Dar es Salaam has ordered Mr Elifadhili Ezekiel Nsangu, who trades as Shingani Sunflower Oil Miller, to pay CRDB Bank Sh616.7 million for breach of a 2014 loan contract.

The bank has been pursuing recovery of the money owed by the oil miller after the latter failed to settle the loan within the agreed time frame.

Judge Deo Nangela of the Commercial Division of the High Court of Tanzania said in a summary judgment that he was satisfied the firm took the loan - and failed to appear in court to defend the case against them. CRDB Bank had moved the court to decide the case without full trial because it had sufficient evidence to make its case.

The oil miller failed to enter appearance in court despite being served with several summonses to appear in court.

The oil miller applied for - and was granted - a Sh436 million loan which it secured by mortgage over land properties located at Ulemo in Singida Municipality.

The bank had also approved the company’s application for restructuring the loan and extended repayment period from 36 to 120 months.

It appears that the new repayment plan could not work to help the company which, yet again, it failed to repay the loan.

CRDB Bank brought a suit against the firm last year. The Singida-based firm failed to appear in court to defend themselves and did not make any application to the court to be allowed to offer a defence to the suit.

CRDB Bank, through its lawyer, Ruqaiya Alharh, asked the court on April 6, 2021 to issue a summary judgment under Order XXXV Rule 2 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code.

“Under the Order, if the defendant fails to give defence to the summary suit without permission of the court, the court will consider that claims contained in the complainant have been admitted,” said the court.

At this point, the plaintiff would not be obliged to prove the suit to the standards required by the law. It is only sufficient for him to show that the defendant took a loan - and has not been able to repay the amount as per agreement.