Camusat Tanzania Limited vs Wananchi Cable Tanzania Limited (Commercial Case No. 22569 of 2026) [2026] TZHC 2924 (4 June 2026)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) AT DAR ES SALAAM COMMERCIAL CASE NO. 22569 OF 2026 CAMUSAT TANZANIA LIMITED......................................... PLAINTIFF VERSUS WANANCHI CABLE TANZANIA LIMITED........................DEFENDANT JUDGMENT 15th May & 4hJune, 2026 POMO, 3 The plaintiff, CAMUSAT TANZANIA LIMITED, has sued the defendant, WANANCHI CABLE TANZANIA LIMITED, for judgment and decree against the defendant as follows. First, an order that the defendant breached the contracts for provision of materials and services offered by the plaintiff to the defendant, and that payment totalling TZS 234,746,872.33 is still outstanding and remains unpaid. Secondly, an order that the defendant shall make payment of TZS 234,746,872.33 to the plaintiff. Thirdly, payment of general damages for failure, ignoring and/or neglecting to settle the debt owing to the plaintiff. Fourthly, payment of commercial interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the outstanding amount from the date of default to

the date of filing the plaint. Fifthly, payment of interest at the rate of 30% on the outstanding amount from the date of filing the plaint to the date of judgment. Sixthly, payment of interest at the rate of 12% or such other court rate as may be applicable from the date of judgment to payment in full. The plaintiff also prays for costs of the suit and any other reliefs which this Court may deem fit and just to grant. The facts of the matter leading to the above claims by the plaintiff against the defendant can be narrated as follows. According to the plaintiff, it is said on diverse dates in March, June and July, 2024, the defendant issued several purchase orders to the plaintiff for provision of materials and services relating to, among others, GPON new build, GPON extensions, GPON infills, new build rings, network extension services, ring construction services, MDU built services, shifting connection, cable pulling, cable installation, and other related works. The purchase orders relied upon by the plaintiff are Purchase Order No. WSTZ5655, Purchase Order No. WSTZ5657, Purchase Order No. WSTZ5666 and Purchase Order No. WSTZ5726. It is further alleged that, upon receipt of the said purchase orders, the plaintiff supplied materials and rendered the contracted services to the defendant and thereafter issued various invoices to the defendant for 2

payment. That, part of the invoiced amounts were paid, but several invoices remained unsettled despite reminders and demand letters. The plaintiff contends that by 18th December, 2024, the outstanding amount had accumulated to TZS 270,365,688.02, and that after further reconciliation, the claim placed before this Court stood at TZS 234,746,872.33. It is on the basis of the alleged outstanding amount that the plaintiff filed this suit. On the contrary, the defendant, in its Written Statement of Defence, disputes the plaintiff's claim. The defendant admits that on 14th March, 2024 it issued Purchase Order No. WSTZ5655 for GPON new build, GPON extensions, GPON infills, new build rings, both aerial and underground, valued at TZS 577,375,943.26, and Purchase Order No. WSTZ5657 valued at TZS 564,753,475.85. Also, admited that on 25th June, 2024 it issued Purchase Order No. WSTZ5726 for fault isolation and mobilization, aerial cable pulling, cable pulling, digging trench, installation of ADSS clamp, UPB bracket and other related services valued at TZS 14,108,173.22. However, the defendant contends that the purchase prices under Purchase Order Nos. WSTZ5655 and WSTZ5657 were paid through bank account number 015032599830 operated at BOA Bank Tanzania Limited.

Further, the defendant avered that the services of network extension, ring construction and MDU built services alleged by the plaintiff are not within the scope of the defendant's purchase orders. Also, disputes the invoices relied upon by the plaintiff, contending that several invoices are invalid and are not acknowledged because they do not fall within the ambit of the purchase orders issued by the defendant. Nevertheless, the defendant admits that invoices numbered 2213 and 2313 are acknowledged and unpaid, and avers that payment in respect of those two invoices was ready to be completed. On that basis, the defendant prays that the plaintiff's suit be dismissed with costs. From the pleadings filed by the parties, three issues fall for determination, namely; one, whether there is a valid agreement in the form of purchase orders between the plaintiff and the defendant in this case; two, if the first issue is answered in the affirmative, whether parties have performed their respective obligations under the agreement; and three, to what reliefs are the parties entitled. During trial, the plaintiff enjoyed legal representation of Mr. Haron Oyugi, learned advocate, whereas the defendant enjoyed legal services of Mr. Atlay Thawe and Mr. Nasri Hassan, learned advocates.

In proof of the claim, the plaintiff had one witness, namely HASHIM ABDULLAH RAHADHANI, who testified as PW1. For defendant's side, also had one witness, namely DENIS NDIWAITA, who testified as DW1. Further, the plaintiff tendered twenty documentary exhibits. The said exhibits are PW l's witness statement deponed on 13th March, 2026 (exhibit PEI); Purchase Order No. WSTZ5655 dated 14th March, 2024 (exhibit PE2); Purchase Order No. WSTZ5657 dated 14th March, 2024 (exhibit PE3); Purchase Order No. WSTZ5726 dated 25th June, 2024 (exhibit PE4); Purchase Order No. WSTZ5666 dated 27th March, 2024 (exhibit PE5); Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02159 dated 29th August, 2024 (exhibit PE6); Tax Invoice No,. CTL/INV02208 dated 30th September, 2024 (exhibit PE7); Tax Invoice No, CTL/INV02210 dated 30th September, 2024 (exhibit PE8); Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02313 dated 11th December, 2024 (exhibit PE9); Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02207 dated30th September, 2024 (exhibit PE10); Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02209 dated30th September, 2024 (exhibit PE11); Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02211 dated30th September, 2024 (exhibit PE12); Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02213 dated30th September, 2024 (exhibit PE13); Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02425 dated 18th March, 2025 (exhibit PE14); Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02426 dated 18th March, 2025 (exhibit PE15); demand

letter Ref. No. CTL/WANANCHI/202411/02 dated 18th November, 2024 (exhibit PE16); demand letter Ref. No. CTL/WANANCHI/202411/03 dated 3rd December, 2024 (exhibit PE17); email printout dated 21st November, 2024 bearing the heading "DEMAND LETTER" (exhibit PE18); email printout dated 18th December, 2024 bearing the heading "RE: DEMAND LETTER TO WANANCHI" (exhibit PE19); and extract of special resolution of the plaintiff's Board of Directors dated 21st May, 2025 (exhibit PE20). For the defence, DW1 tendered eleven documentary exhibits. These are DW l's witness statement dated 18th March, 2026 (exhibit DEI); proof of payment titled TISS/EFT (Other Local Banks) dated 30th September, 2025 with execution date 7th June, 2024 for TZS 183,627,116.48 (exhibit DE2); proof of payment dated 30th September, 2025 with execution date 19th February, 2024 for TZS 49,248,554.64 (exhibit DE3); proof of payment dated 30th September, 2025 with execution date 5th April, 2024 for TZS 138,106,511.69 (exhibit DE4); proof of payment dated 30th September, 2025 with execution date 5th November, 2024 for TZS 113,893,411.49 (exhibit DE5); proof of payment dated 30th September, 2025 with execution date 29th January, 2025 for TZS 100,000,000 (exhibit DE6); proof of payment dated 30th September, 2025 with execution date 29th April, 2025

for TZS 120,236,473.50 (exhibit DE7); proof of payment dated 30th September, 2025 with execution date 11th December, 2024 for TZS 54.138.171.22 (exhibit DE8); proof of payment dated 30th September, 2025 with execution date 11th July, 2024 for TZS 144,755,391.28 (exhibit DE9); proof of payment dated 30th September, 2025 with execution date 3rd June, 2025 for TZS 120,236,473.50 (exhibit DE10); and proof of payment dated 30th September, 2025 with execution date 29th August, 2024 for TZS 138.245.935.22 (exhibit DE11). Evidence adduced for and against the suit are not going to be reproduced here, instead, will be consider in the course of determining the issues framed. Beginning with the first issue, namely; whether there is a valid agreement in the form of purchase orders between the plaintiff and the defendant in this case. In Black's Law Dictionary 9th Edition, at page 1354, the term "Purchase Order" is defined thus: - "A document authorizing a seller to deliver goods with payment to be made later . " In this suit, the plaintiff asserted, under paragraph 4 of the plaint, that on 14/03/2024, the plaintiff and the defendant signed Purchase Orders Nos.

WSTZ5655 and WSTZ5657 now exhibit PE2 and PE3 respectively. Again, on 27/03/2024, further signed another Purchase Order No. WSTZ5666 which is now exhibit PE4. On 25/06/2024 another Purchase Order, No. WSTZ5726, was signed by the parties which now forms exhibit PE5. Purchase Order No. WSTZ5655 (exhibit PE2) related to Turnkey 2024 services. The items ordered under it were GPON new build with quantity of 500.0000 at the unit price of TZS 122,154.45 and net price of TZS 61,077,225.02; GPON Extensions with quantity of 1,400.0000 at the unit price of TZS 90,759.99 and net price of TZS 127,063,991.24; GPON infills with quantity of 1,500.0000 at the unit price of TZS 78,780.00 and net price of TZS 118,169,998.62; New build rings (Aerial) with quantity of 31.654.0000 at the unit price of TZS 5,109.59 and net price of TZS 161,739,032.45; and New build rings (Underground) with quantity of 1.591.0000 at the unit price of TZS 13,357.26 and net price of TZS 21,251,399.51. The total amount exclusive of tax was TZS 489,301,646.84, tax was TZS 88,074,296.42, and the total value of the purchase order was TZS 577,375,943.26. Purchase Order No. WSTZ5657 (exhibit PE3) related to Turnkey 2024 materials. The items ordered under it were GPON new build with

quantity of 500.0000 at the unit price of TZS 129,920.00 and net price of TZS 64,959,997.82; GPON Extensions with quantity of 1,400.0000 at the unit price of TZS 91,350.00 and net price of TZS 127,889,999.05; GPON infills with quantity of 1,500.0000 at the unit price of TZS 91,350.00 and net price of TZS 137,024,998.98; New build rings (Aerial) with quantity of 31.654.0000 at the unit price of TZS 4,424.39 and net price of TZS 140,049,745.20; and New build rings (Underground) with quantity of 1.591.0000 at the unit price of TZS 5,455.63 and net price of TZS 8,679,899.49. The total amount exclusive of tax was TZS 478,604,640.54, tax was TZS 86,148,835.31, and the total value of the purchase order was TZS 564,753,475.85. Purchase Order No. WSTZ5726 (exhibit PE4) related to network maintenance. The items ordered under it included Fault Isolation and Mobilization with quantity of 8.00000 at the unit price of TZS 104,975.00 and net price of TZS 839,800.00; Aerial Cable Pulling only up to 144 core with quantity of 1,600.00000 at the unit price of TZS 882.00 and net price of TZS 1,411,200.00; Underground cable pulling up to 144 core with quantity of 0.00000 and net price of TZS 0.00; Cable regulation up to 144 core with quantity of 1,200.00000 at the unit price of TZS 767.00 and net price of TZS 9 Vi

920,400.00; Cable recovery up to 144 core with quantity of 400.00000 at the unit price of TZS 420.00 and net price of TZS 168,000.00; Slack/Loop transferring with quantity of 300.00000 at the unit price of TZS 840.00 and net price of TZS 252,000.00; and Splicing from 1 to 144 core with quantity of 350.00000 at the unit price of TZS 14,450.00 and net price of TZS 5,057,500.00. It also covered installation of ADSS clamp, installation of UPB bracket including steel strap core, removing materials from pole, cable preparation, closure or FAT installation and replacement, re-opening of existing cables and introducing new splicing closure, pole installation, pole recovery, pruning, pole transportation and related works. The amount exclusive of tax was TZS 11,956,079.00, tax was TZS 2,152,094.22, and the total value of the purchase order was TZS 14,108,173.22. Purchase Order No. WSTZ5666 (exhibit PE5) related to subscriber installation for Q2-2024. The items ordered under it included Subscriber Installation within 75 with quantity of 470.00000 at the unit price of TZS 73,355.00 and net price of TZS 34,476,850.00; Subscriber Installation within 150 with quantity of 620.00000 at the unit price of TZS 83,725.00 and net price of TZS 51,909,500.00; Subscriber Installation up to 200 with quantity of 85.00000 at the unit price of TZS 89,420.00 and net price of TZS 10 V i

7,600,700.00; Shifting connect within 75 with quantity of 120.00000 at the unit price of TZS 73,355.00 and net price of TZS 8,802,600.00; Shifting connect within 150 with quantity of 55.00000 at the unit price of TZS 83,725.00 and net price of TZS 4,604,875.00; and Shifting connect up to 200 with quantity of 3.00000 at the unit price of TZS 89,420.00 and net price of TZS 268,260.00. It further covered additional GPON cable, additional UTP cable, installation or reconfiguration of extender/ONU, Add TV, pre-cabled GP1/GSR, complex installation, pre-cabling, pole installation, pole transportation, digging trench, restoration works, removal of cabro blocks and PVC trunking installation. The amount exclusive of tax was TZS 133,996,832.00, tax was TZS 24,119,429.76, and the total value of the purchase order was TZS 158,116,261.76. These purchase Orders, exhibit PE2; PE3; PE4 and PE5 were acknowledged by the defendant under paragraph 3 of the Written statement of Defence (the WSD) whereby is asserted the defendant on 14/3/2024 issued to the plaintiff Purchase Orders Nos. WSTZ5655 and WSTZ5657. Under the same WSD, under paragraph 4, the defendant acknowledged to have issued, on 25/06/2024, Purchase Order No. WSTZ5726. In the whole WSD, the defendant is silent on the Purchase Order No. WSTZ5666 (exhibit

PE4) said on 27/03/2024 was issued by her to the plaintiff. However, the same was admitted without any objection. In that regard therefore, issue No.l is affirmatively resolved Next is issue No.2, namely; if the first issue is answered in the affirmative, whether parties have performed their respective obligations under the agreement? The obligation the plaintiff had over the purchase orders, exhibit PE3 to PE5, was that of rendering services by supplying to the defendant the items prescribed in those purchase orders. On the other hand, the defendant had a duty of paying for the service rendered, that is to say, for the items supplied following those Purchase Orders. Out of the invoices tendered by the plaintiff, namely Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02159 (exhibit PE6), Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02208 (exhibit PE7), Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02210 (exhibit PE8), Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02313 (exhibit PE9), Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02207 (exhibit PE10), Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02209 (exhibit PE11), Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02211 (exhibit PE12), Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02213 (exhibit PE13), Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02425 (exhibit PE14) and Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02426 (exhibit PE15), the following items were supplied in

accordance with the defendant's purchase orders, exhibits PE2 to PE5. These are Ring Construction Services in Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02159 (exhibit PE6), which related to New build rings under Purchase Order No. WSTZ5655 (exhibit PE2); Network Extension Services in Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02210 (exhibit PE8) and Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02313 (exhibit PE9), which related to GPON Extensions under Purchase Order No. WSTZ5655 (exhibit PE2); Network Extension Materials in Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02209 (exhibit PE11), which related to GPON Extensions under Purchase Order No. WSTZ5657 (exhibit PE3); Ring Construction Materials in Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02211 (exhibit PE12), which related to New build rings, under Purchase Order No. WSTZ5657 (exhibit PE3); and the works covered by Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02213 (exhibit PE13), which tallied with network maintenance works under Purchase Order No. WSTZ5726 (exhibit PE4). On the other hand, the following items appearing in the invoices were outside the purchase orders relied upon by the plaintiff. These are MDU Built Services appearing in Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02208 (exhibit PE7), which was tied to Purchase Order No. WSTZ5655 (exhibit PE2) although that purchase order did not order MDU Built Services; MDU Built Materials 13 \ L

appearing in Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02207 (exhibit PE10), which was tied to Purchase Order No. WSTZ5657 (exhibit PE3) although that purchase order did not order MDU Built Materials; MDU Built Materials appearing in Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02425 (exhibit PE14), which also did not fall under Purchase Order No. WSTZ5657 (exhibit PE3); and MDU Built Services appearing in Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02426 (exhibit PE15), which did not fall, under Purchase Order No. WSTZ5655 (exhibit PE2). As regards Purchase Order No. WSTZ5666 (exhibit PE5), it covered subscriber installation, shifting connection, additional GPON cable, additional UTP cable, installation or reconfiguration of extender/ONU, Add TV, pre cabling, complex installation, pole installation, pole transportation, trenching and related subscriber installation works. However, none of the tax invoices (exhibits PE6 to PE15) was clearly shown to have been raised under Purchase Order No. WSTZ5666 (exhibit PE5). Therefore, no specific invoice among exhibits PE6 to PE15 can safely be attached to Purchase Order No. WSTZ5666 (exhibit PE5). Therefore, the invoices which tallied or were generally consistent with the purchase orders were Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02159 (exhibit PE6), Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02210 (exhibit PE8), Tax Invoice No. 14 \ l l

CTL/INV02313 (exhibit PE9), Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02209 (exhibit PE11), Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02211 (exhibit PE12) and Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02213 (exhibit PE13). Conversely, the invoices whose items fell outside the purchase orders were Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02208 (exhibit PE7), Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02207 (exhibit PEIO), Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02425 (exhibit PE14) and Tax Invoice No. CTL/INV02426 (exhibit PE15). What then did the defendant paid for? During cross-examination, DW1 was referred to Purchase Order No. WSTZ5655 (exhibit PE2), Purchase Order No. WSTZ5657 (exhibit PE3), Purchase Order No. WSTZ5726 (exhibit PE4) and Purchase Order No. WSTZ5666 (exhibit PE5). He admitted that the purchase orders were four in number and further stated, and I quote, "It is true we received services and materials stated under the four purchase orders (Exhibit PE2 to PE5)."This admission confirms that the defendant did not merely issue the four purchase orders, but also received services and materials under them. With the above admission by DW1, the next question is whether the defendant proved payment for the services and materials received under all four purchase orders. In my view, the answer is in the negative. DW1

admitted that the defendant received services and materials stated under the four purchase orders, namely Purchase Order No. WSTZ5655 (exhibit PE2), Purchase Order No. WSTZ5657 (exhibit PE3), Purchase Order No. WSTZ5726 (exhibit PE4) and Purchase Order No. WSTZ5666 (exhibit PE5). However, the proof of payments tendered by the defendant as exhibits DE2 to DE11 did not prove payment of all four purchase orders. The total amount reflected in exhibits DE2 to DE11 was TZS 1,142,129,419.10. That amount corresponds with the combined value of Purchase Order No. WSTZ5655 (exhibit PE2) and Purchase Order No. WSTZ5657 (exhibit PE3), whose total value was TZS 1,142,129,419.11. PW1 also admitted that the total amount forming Purchase Order No. WSTZ5655 (exhibit PE2) and Purchase Order No. WSTZ5657 (exhibit PE3) was TZS 1,142,129,419.11. Therefore, the proof of payments tendered by the defendant can only be safely related to those two purchase orders. Further, DW1 himself stated in re-examination that payments were made only for the two purchase orders in which services were rendered and invoices accepted. That evidence excludes the possibility that exhibits DE2 to DE11 constituted payment for all four purchase orders. It follows that, although the defendant received services and materials under all four 16

purchase orders, it proved payment only in respect of two purchase orders, namely Purchase Order No. WSTZ5655 (exhibit PE2) and Purchase Order No. WSTZ5657 (exhibit PE3). Accordingly, there is no proof that the defendant paid for the whole of Purchase Order No. WSTZ5726 (exhibit PE4) and Purchase Order No. WSTZ5666 (exhibit PE5). The admission by DW1 that the defendant received services and materials under exhibits PE2 to PE5, while proving payment only for two purchase orders, means that the defendant did not establish full performance of its payment obligation under all four purchase orders. Lastly, is issue No.3, to wit; to what reliefs are the parties entitled? As it stands resolved in issue No.l that the defendant issued to the plaintiff four purchase orders, namely Purchase Order No. WSTZ5655 (exhibit PE2) and Purchase Order No. WSTZ5657 (exhibit PE3); Purchase Order No. WSTZ5726 (exhibit PE4) and Purchase Order No. WSTZ5666 (exhibit PE5). Again, as it is resolved under issue No.2 that the plaintiff supplied goods and services itemized under the said purchase orders and the defendants paid only for exhibit PE2 and PE3 vide proof of payments, exhibits DE2 to DEI 1. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for good and services 17

rendered under Purchase Order No. WSTZ5726 (exhibit PE4) and Purchase Order No. WSTZ5666 (exhibit PE5) which are yet to be paid for. I have read the said exhibits. The value of Purchase Order No. WSTZ5726 (exhibit PE4) is TZS 14,108,173.22 while the value of Purchase Order No. WSTZ5666 (exhibit PE5) is TZS 158,116,261.76 VAT inclusive in both, hence a total of TZS 172,224,434.98 unpaid for. Based on the analysis above, I allow the suit and make the following ordered. One; the Defendant breached the contracts for provision of materials and services offered by the Plaintiff to the Defendant and the payment totaling TZS 172,224,434.98 is still outstanding and remains unpaid; two, the defendant is hereby ordered to pay the plaintiff TZS 172,224,434.98 an outstanding amount forming goods and services under Purchase Order No. WSTZ5726 (exhibit PE4) and Purchase Order No. WSTZ5666 (exhibit PE5) received by the defendant from the plaintiff; three, the defendant is hereby ordered to pay the plaintiff TZS 10,000,000/- general damages; four, payment of 7% court's interest on decretal amount from the date of this judgment to the date of payment in full; five, the defendant shall pay the costs of the suit. It is so ordered Right of appeal explained.

DATED at MBEYA on this 4th day of JUNE, 2026 \f}. MUSA K. POMO JUDGE 04/06/2026 Judgment delivered virtually at Mbeya sub - registry of the High Court in chamber on this 4th day of June, 2026 in presence of Haron Oyugi, learned advocate for the plaintiff and Mr. Atlay Thawe, learned advocate for the defendant, Right of Appeal fully explained \ f i . MUSA K. POMO JUDGE 04/06/2026 19