Bank of India (T) Limited vs Mamuzungu Injection Services & Used Spare Parts Ltd & Others (Civil Appeal No. 308 of 2024) [2026] TZCA 375 (27 March 2026)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT MWANZA fCORAM: SEHEL. J.A.. ISSA. J.A. And ISMAIL. J.A.^ CIVIL APPEAL NO. 308 OF 2024 BANK OF INDIA (T) LIMITED........................................................APPELLANT VERSUS MAMUZUNGU INJECTION SERVICES & USED SPARE PARTS LTD.........................................................1st RESPONDENT AHMED KHALID S A ID ............................................................2n d RESPONDENT MARIAM JUMA MAPUNDA .......................... . ......... . .............. 3rd RESPONDENT SALUM KHALID S IA D ............................................................ 4th RESPONDENT (Appeal from the decision of the High Court of Tanzania, Commercial Division, at Dar es Salaam) fMaaoiaa. 3.^ dated the 16th day of July, 2021 in Commercial Case No. 51 of 2019 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 3^ December, 2025 & 270 1 March, 2026 SEHEL 3.A.: This first appeal arose from the judgment and decree of the High Court, Commercial Division at Dar es Salaam (the High Court) in Commercial Case No. 51 of 2019. In that case, Bank of India (T) Limited, the appellant, claimed inter alia, for a declaratory order that the 1st, 2nd , i

3rd and 4th respondents were jointly and severally liable to pay the appellant the total sum of Tanzania Shillings Nine Hundred Twenty-Two Million Eight Hundred Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred Ninety-Three and Sixty-Nine Cents only (TZS. 992,817,593.69) being an outstanding loaned amount plus accrued interests and other charges thereon as at 22n d February, 2019 and costs of the suit. A brief factual background underlying the present appeal is to the effect that, between 2012 and 2015, the appellant advanced multiple term loans and overdraft facilities to the 1st respondent payable in monthly equal instalments over thirty-six (36) months from the date of disbursement which was the 15th May, 2007, exhibits Pla-e. The said loans and overdraft facilities were secured by personal guarantees of the 3rd and 4th respondents, exhibits 3a-b, registered mortgages of their landed properties, exhibit P2a-m belonging to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents, and debentures, exhibits P4a-d. It was alleged by the appellant that the 1st respondent defaulted and stopped the monthly repayment in 2017. Subsequent to the default, the appellant served the respondents with two demand notices but they failed to honour the request, exhibit P6a-b. It was further alleged that, 2

as up to 22n d February, 2019, the unpaid amount stood at TZS. 992.817.593.69, comprising of the principal amount, interests and other charges, exhibit P5. The bank statement of the 1st respondent was also tendered in evidence as exhibit P7a-d. On the other hand, in their joint written statement of defence, the respondents denied the allegation and averred that all loans and facilities were repaid in time through four bank accounts number 0122008511, 360105UNDEP099, 36010122008511 and 36010GENS05099 held in the appellant's bank in the name of the 1st respondent. That, a total sum of TZS. 850,750,000.00 was paid through bank account number 0122008511 and TZS. 33,071,550.00 was deposited by the 1st respondent in account number 360105UNDEP099. Various bank deposit slips were tendered and admitted in evidence as exhibit Dl. After completion for the filing of the pleadings, the case was unsuccessfully mediated. Therefore, the case went for trial. During trial, four issues were framed for the determination by the trial court. One, whether the 1st respondent took the loan from the appellant of TZS. 992.817.593.69. Two, if the answer to issue number one was in the affirmative, whether the 1st respondent has discharged all obligations 3

attached in the loan agreements. Three, whether the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents who were guarantors to the loans and credit facilities can be held liable upon default of the 1st respondent and four, what reliefs were the parties entitled to. For the first issue, the High Court observed that, according to the testimonies of PW1, DW1 and final closing submission together with exhibits Pla-e, the 1st respondent secured loans and overdraft facilities of TZS. 600,000,000.00 as principal sum without bank interests. In that respect, it answered the first issue in the affirmative to the extent that the total loaned amount was TZS. 600,000,000.00 and not TZS. 922,817,593.69 as alleged by the appellant. The High Court answered the second issue partly in favour of the appellant. It reasoned that exhibits P7b and P7c showed zero balance meaning that the whole of the term loan taken by the 1st respondent was paid in full with the exception to exhibit P7d which showed the outstanding balance of TZS. 98,255,893.85. Accordingly, it held that the respondents breached the terms and conditions of the facility letters. In regard to the third issue, the High Court was satisfied that the appellant had proven her case on balance of probabilities that the 1st 4

respondent had not paid the loaned money in full. As such, given that the guarantors guaranteed the 1st respondent's term loan and credit facilities, in terms of section 8 of the Law of Contract, the 2nd , 3rd and 4th respondents' liabilities co-existed with that of the borrower. It therefore held that the demand notices served by post were enough to hold the guarantors liable. On the fourth issue, the High Court was satisfied with the respondent's bank statement (exhibit P7d) that, as of 22n d February, 2019, the outstanding amount was TZS. 98,255,893.85 and not TZS. 922,817,593.69 as claimed by the appellant. In the end, the High Court decreed in favour of the appellant that the respondents to jointly and severally pay the appellant, one, TZS. 98,255,893.85 being outstanding loan amount plus interest of the loaned amount; two, interest on the decretal sum at the Bank rate of 20% from the date of default to the date of judgment; three, court's interest at the rate of 12% from the date of judgment to date of full payment and costs of the suit. It further ordered for sale of the mortgaged properties. Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the appellant lodged the present appeal assailing it on the following five grounds of appeal: 5

"1) That the tria l court erred in law and fact by its faiiure to take into account the appellant's testim ony to the effects that by rem itting the lesser amount to the respondents bank after requesting for reduction o f monthly remittance was not a breach o f the terms and conditions o f the contract. 2) That the tria l court erred in law and fact by holding that remedial steps proposed by the appellant to the respondent amounted to the breach o f the contract. 3) That the trial court erred in law and fact by its failure to take into account the appellant's evidence to the effect that the respondent's intention was to dispose o f the mortgaged property rather than recovery o f its loan amount. 4) That the trial court erred in law and fact to award interest to the respondent who was the cause o f a ll the misdeeds. 5) That the trial court erred in law and fact to hold as it held." When the appeal was placed before us for hearing, the appellant was represented by Messrs. Shukran Mzikila and Boniface Woiso, learned 6

advocates, whereas, the respondents were represented by Mr. Mashaka Mfala, learned advocate. It is noteworthy to point out that the appellant filed written submissions in terms of rule 106 (1) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules (the Rules), in support of the five grounds of appeal. Upon taking the floor to argue the appeal, Mr. Woiso adopted the written submissions to form part of his oral submission and collectively highlighted the five grounds of appeal. He faulted the findings of the High Court that the outstanding balance was TZS. 98,255,893.85 while that figure was based on the opening balance for the overdraft account of TZS. 400,000,000.00 as appearing at exhibit 7d found at page 755 of the record of appeal. He argued that the actual outstanding balance for such loaned amount was TZS. 485,106,716.57 as appearing at page 742 of the record of appeal. He added that the 1st respondent took various loans as evidenced by exhibits 7a-d. He pointed out that exhibit 7c found at page 756 and 759 is an account for a term loan of TZS. 200,000,000.00 which had outstanding balance of TZS. 194,435,355.29 whereas the learned trial Judge said that it had zero balance. He clarified that the balance became zero after the account had been charged off with the

outstanding interest in order to calculate the actual principal outstanding. That, the charging off was made on 1st March, 2021. He added that the same applied for the term loan of TZS. 70,000,000.00 (exhibit 7b) whereby the outstanding balance was TZS. 25,982,165.77 and on 1st March, 2021 the loan was charged off. He referred us to exhibit P5 which he claimed that the total outstanding balance is indicated therein which was TZS. 912,817,593.69. When probed by the Court as to who prepared exhibit P5, he readily responded that the bank made such calculation. When further probed on whether there was double charging of interest rates, he readily admitted that exhibit P5 erroneously was worked upon as the unrealised and uncharged interests were added to the outstanding balance which were already included in the outstanding balance. On his part, Mr. Mfala argued that the 1st respondent adhered to its contractual obligation as the loan was repaid in full. He argued that the payments were effected through accounts number 0122008511, 360105UNDEP099, 36010122008511 and 3610GENS05099 which were opened by the appellant without its knowledge. That, upon instruction from the appellant, the 1st respondent deposited money exceeding the 8

borrowed amount in the accounts opened by the appellant but the appellant failed to bring the bank statements of the said accounts. He referred us to the bank deposit slips (exhibit Dl-238) which he claimed were not recorded in the bank accounts opened by the appellant in the name of the 1st respondent. In the end, Mr. Mfala urged the Court to declare that the respondents had no outstanding loan and the appeal be dismissed with costs. In rejoinder, Mr. Woiso submitted that the money deposited by the 1st respondents were recorded and reflected in the bank statements tendered before the trial court and admitted as exhibits 7a-d. We have carefully considered the competing arguments from the counsel for the parties on the grounds of appeal and observed that two issues arose for determination. First, whether the respondents repaid the loan in full and secondly, whether the High Court erred in finding the outstanding principal loan was TZS. 98,255,893.85. Essentially, the two issues centre on the factual findings. This being a first appeal, in terms of rule 36 (1) (a) of the Rules, we are entitled to subject the evidence on record to an exhaustive scrutiny and draw our own conclusion on the appeal, while in mind that the trial court 9

had an advantage of seeing, observing and assessing the demeanour of the witnesses. This position was restated in the cases of, Peters v. Sunday Post [1958] E.A 424; Jamal A. Tamim v. Felix Francis Mkosamali & Another [2013] TZCA 342 and The Registered Trustees of Joy in the Harvest v. Hamza K. Sungura [2021] TZCA 139. In the latter case, the Court echoed that: "...the obligation imposed on the first appeiiate court in handling an appeal is not a fight duty. It is a painstaking exercise involving rigorously testing o f the reliability o f the findings o f the court below.,." We will start with the first issue. The respondents claimed that they have repaid the loan in full thus, there was no any outstanding balance. In support of their claim, they filed and tendered various bank pay-in-slips (exhibits Dl-248) which they claimed they proved on the balance of probabilities that the 1st respondent repaid the loaned amount in full but the same were not reflected in the appellant's bank statement. On our part, we painstakingly reviewed each and every bank pay- in-slips and observed that, one, the alleged repayments were made between 2010 and 2017. In that regard, we entirely agree with the 10

appellant that there was no single repayment made by the respondents after 2017. Two, all payments were recorded and reflected in the bank statements (exhibits 7a-d). For instance, a bank pay-in-slip of 13th November, 2014 (exhibit Dl-100) appearing at page 1060 of the record of appeal which showed that the 1st respondent deposited cash of TZS. 3,800,000.00 was recorded and reflected in exhibit 7d and that amount appears at page 747 of the record of appeal. Exhibit D1 -95 which showed that the 1st respondent paid TZS. 1,020,000.00 in cash on 23rd July, 2013 was recorded and reflected in exhibit 7d and that amount appears at page 752 of the record of appeal. Exhibit D1 -117 which showed that the 1st respondent paid TZS. 10,000,000.00 in cash on 12th March, 2015 was recorded and reflected in exhibit 7d appearing at page 747 of the record of appeal. Exhibit Dl-13 which showed that the 1st respondent paid cash of TZS. 15,000,000.00 on 25th November, 2015 was recorded and reflected in exhibit 7d and that amount appears at page 743 of the record of appeal. Exhibit Dl-46 which showed that the 1st respondent paid cash of TZS. 1,350,000.00 on 5th November, 2012 was recorded and reflected in exhibit 7d and that amount appears at i i

page 754 of the record of appeal. Exhibit Dl-181 which showed that the 1st respondent paid cash of TZS. 9,000,000.00 on 8th June, 2016 was recorded and reflected in exhibit 7d and that amount appears at page 742 of the record of appeal. From the random sampling of bank pay-in-slips which we have tried to show hereinabove, we find that all bank pay-in-slips were recorded in the respondents' bank statements. Having observed so, the ensuing question is whether the respondents fully discharged their obligations by repaying the loaned amount in full. This question is directly connected to the second issue which we now turn to consider. The second issue is whether the High Court erred in holding that the outstanding balance was TZS. 98,255,893.85. The counsel for the appellant faulted the learned trial Judge and relied on exhibit P5 found at page 741 in asserting that the outstanding balance was TZS. 922,817,593.69. We have revisited this piece of evidence and observed that it was prepared by the credit manager of the appellant and it did not involve the other party, that is, the respondents. Further, we observed that exhibit P5 purported to itemize the outstanding balance for each loan taken by the 1st respondent and 12

computed therein the unrealized interest, uncharged interest, legal charges and other charges and came up with a total of outstanding balance of TZS. 922,817,593.69. Having compared the figures enumerated in exhibit P5 with other pieces of evidence, we observed that the outstanding principal amount differs with the bank statements (exhibits 7a-d). While the remaining principal balance for the loaned amount of TZS. 200,000,000,00 was TZS. 170,435,355.29 as shown in exhibit P7c, exhibit P5 showed the remaining balance was TZS. 194,435,355.29. For the loaned amount of TZS. 70,000,000.00, the remaining baiance was TZS. 22,841,972.65 as reflected in exhibit P7b but exhibit P5 showed the balance was TZS. 25,982,165.77. In that regard, we are of the considered view that, the balance shown in exhibit P5 which was prepared by the appellant does not have any legal basis because it was not backed up by the bank statements. Exhibit P5 being a self-made document could not carry enough weight compared to other pieces of evidence in the record of appeal. It would have evidential value if it was prepared by both parties or tallied with the bank statements (exhibits 7a-d). In that respect, we are satisfied that the High Court did not err when it disregarded this piece of evidence, exhibit P5. 13

Nonetheless, having carefully revisited the bank statements (exhibits 7a-d) we observed that, for the loaned amount of TZS. 400.000.000.00, the principal outstanding debt is TZS. 485,106,716.57; for the loaned amount TZS. 200,000,000.00 the outstanding principal debt is TZS. 170,935,983.86 and for the loaned amount TZS. 70.000.000.00, the outstanding principal debt is TZS. 22,841,972.65. Therefore, the total outstanding principal balance was TZS. 678,884,673.08 and not TZS. 98,255,983.85 as held by the High Court. From what we have shown in our discussion in the preceding issues, we are settled in our minds that the evidence on record proved on the balance of probabilities that the respondents were indebted to the appellant at the tune of TZS. 678,884,673.08 being principal amount. This amount does not include unrealized and uncharged interests and other charges which have to be calculated by the appellant as per the terms and conditions of each loan agreements. In the result and for all the above reasons, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent explained above. For avoidance of doubt, all other reliefs awarded by the High Court remained undisturbed as were not 14

challenged by either party. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs. DATED at DODOMA this 9th day of March, 2026. B. M. A. SEHEL JUSTICE OF APPEAL A. A. ISSA JUSTICE OF APPEAL M. K. ISMAIL JUSTICE OF APPEAL Judgment delivered this 27th day of March, 2026 in the presence of Mr. Shukran Elliot Mzikila, learned counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Mashaka Edgar Mfala, learned counsel for the Respondents via virtual Court and Mr. Nelson Allipio, Court Clerk; is hereby certified as a true 15