Tanzania: Saini civil case takes fresh twist

THE case involving Balbir Singh Saini against Savings Finance Commercial Bank Limited and BECCO took a new twist when the High Court of Tanzania, Commercial Division, ordered the first's defendant Managing Director to appear before the court to provide evidence in support of the case.

Sources told the 'Daily News' on Thursday that the Commercial Court ordered Ms Dilip Kesaria and company advocates to produce by today (Friday) before the court all the documents upon which the firm intend to rely upon in support of the case which has been going on since 2006.

It is alleged that in Case Number 83 of 2006, Mr and Mrs Parveen Singh Saini are seeking a total compensation of 220m/- after their money was in 2004 illegally taken from the Savings and Finance Commercial Bank Limited, currently known as NIC Bank Tanzania Limited.

In the case, at Court of Appeal of Tanzania, respondents (1 and 2) claimed damages after the Appellant had unlawfully withheld the money deposited in their accounts and used it as a lien for financial credit facility issued to a third party.

The respondents claimed 20m/- as punitive damages and 100m/- as general damages.
The amount withheld unlawfully by Savings and Finance as of November 2004 was 89m/- and 10,340 US dollars for a lien of 100m/- towards funds loaned to a construction company known as BECCO.

M/s Savings and Finance Bank made business from M/s BECCO to the tune of 17 per cent as per records on 20 June 2008 and received over 176m/- from that earnings as per records of banks.

Makoa Law Chambers advocate, who stands for the plaintiffs, Joseph Ngiloi told the court yesterday that the defendant advocate, Dilip Kesaria and company, had been evasive and sometimes giving misleading information to both the High Court and Court of Appeal.

This situation has delayed payments to the clients and angered his clients. The advocate submitted that his firm has noted in astonishment that the said bank was paid by M/s BECCO for the said loaned money with interest of 17 per cent far back in the year 2008 before the Commercial Court had even issued a judgement in favour of the clients.

The third respondent paid the said money vide a cheque having an amount of 471,363,474.60/- paid through CRDB bank on June 21, 2008.

In a letter addressed to M/s Dilip Kesaria and Company advocates and commissioner for Oaths notaries public, Makoa Law Chambers expressed concern saying that the judgement for paying the clients money taken from the clients' account was announced on 12 February 2009.

"Which you knowingly knew that the money had been well received in your clients account and you went ahead and instituted the appeal before the Court of Appeal of Tanzania Civil Appeal Number 32 of 2009," noted the letter.

According to him the appeal was urged well and to some degree reduced some of the clients benefits.

"We've examined the facts surrounding this case and discovered that transactions which operated behind your client and the third respondent in this case and it is our opinion that the court was not well guided to institute justice," he explained.

Court of Appeal, Civil Appeal Number 32 of 2009 clearly stated that the defendant bank acted contrary to prudent banking principles by acting in breach of its obligations and doing so without reasonable care and without exercising reasonable skills of a banker.

The High Court also stated that there was no justification in awarding punitive damages especially considering that there was no evidence of malice or deceit on the part of the appellant.

On his part Makoa chamber advocate Anney Semu reiterated that the account withheld by the appellant attracted commercial interest.

He added that the respondent's accounts were withheld by the appellant for over four years and thus he proposed the award should be 20 per cent or even more than that.

However, the Court of Appeal was of the opinion that the basis of the interest awarded should have relied on savings account interests. The appellant and the third respondent shall equally be liable to pay such interest for savings account prevailing at the time of the transaction for the same case.

On 8th June 2011, the Makoa firm also expressed concern to the court as saying the enquiries in the two accounts (NIC Bank Tanzania Limited) held in judgement debtor's bank along Samora Avenue Bank at around 13.11 hrs revealed no entries made there in.

"The said intended deposits as so said by the counsel of the judgement debtor, are not reflected in my clients account at all when we made balance enquiries over the twenty four hours after the deposits were indicated to have been made," Mr Ngiloi told the court.

Further the court directed that to the matter of alleged misconduct on the part of the first defendant and their counsel M/s Kesaria and advocates, it will issue a ruling on June 20.