Citibank appeals to Court of Appeal to save 48.6bn/-

Determined to save over 48.6bn/-, Citibank Tanzania Limited (CTL) has appealed to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania against the Tanzania Telecommunications Company Limited (TTCL) and four others, over a High Court decision that favoured the latter.

The appellant, lodged on Monday against the first respondent, TTCL, along with the Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA), Tanzania Communications Regulatory Authority (TCRA), VIP Engineering and Marketing Limited (VIP) and Tri-Telecommunication Tanzania Limited (TRITEL) liquidator, as second, third, fourth and fifth respondents, respectively. The appeal seeks to challenge TRITEL liquidation process involving 48,687,781,747/-.

The appeal has attracted the attention of a panel of lawyers comprising advocates Dilip Kesaria from Kesaria & Co. Advocates, Fatma Karume drawn from IMMMA Advocates, and another from Nyalali, Warioba and Mahalu Advocates, who jointly represent the bank.

In the memorandum of appeal, the lawyers have unanimously presented 19 grounds of appeal arising from parts of the ruling, finding and orders of Judge Nathalia Kimaro (as she then was) at the Commercial Division of the High Court of Tanzania.

In the first ground the lawyers argue that the entire proceedings and decision of the trial judge were bad in law as they were largely based on misprint and incorrect application of the provision on the debenture of TRITEL to the bank that culminated in ``gross and substantial miscarriage of justice to the utter prejudice and detriment of the bank``.

They contend that the trial judge erred in law and in fact by not abiding by procedures by illegally admitting VIP as among petitioners in the winding up process of TRITEL, which is the subject matter of the whole appeal.

``The trial judge erred in law and fact in admitting an affidavit dated March 31, 2003 sworn by James Burchard Rugemalira which was filed by the fourth respondent purportedly in support of a creditor`s winding up petition and in so doing arrived at several erroneous decisions and orders,`` they allege in the third ground of the appeal.

They further argue that the trial judge erred in law and fact not only by admitting VIP to the petition when it was a mere minority shareholder and contributor to TRITEL but also by treating it as a creditor for the purported value of USD18,628,000.

Apart from VIP demanding such monies from the bank, TTCL demands payment of USD11,125,968 as total fees from TRITEL, while TRA demands total taxes amounting to 6,729,665,612/- and TCRA just only licence fee from TRITEL to the tune of 3,279,357,735/-.

It is also argued that the trial judge erred in law and fact in invalidating the appellant\'s debenture dated April 6, 2001 on the basis of uncorroborated evidence by VIP relating to the contribution of the board of directors to TRITEL.

They further contend that the trial judge erred in law by ordering the appointment of the liquidator of TRITEL, Peter Bakilana, in gross violation and contravention of the applicable provisions of the rules of 1929.

``The trial judge erred in failing to require the liquidator to post security as required by law without assigning any reason for such waiver,``the lawyers so argue in the 19th ground of their appeal against TTCL and four others.

All said and done, the lawyers jointly ask the court to allow the appeal, pray for an order to quash and set aside the ruling, findings and orders in relation to the debenture dated April 6, 2001 granted by TRITEL to the bank and its counterpart in Bahrain.

They further ask the court to further quash the appointment of Peter Bakilana as liquidator of TRITEL and the admission of VIP as petitioner in the winding up proceedings.

Chief Justice Augustino Ramadhani is expected to appoint panelists of the court to hear and determine the appeal in the next session.

SOURCE: Guardian