IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA

(LAND DIVISION)

AT DAR ES SALAAM

LAND CASE NO. 15 OF 2023

AYUB SAMSON SANGA t/a

AYUB SAMSON ENTERPRISES...................... PLAINTIFF

VERSUS
KCB BANK (T) LTD................................. ...DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
Date of last Order :05/10/2023
Date ofJudgment: 18/12/2023

K.D. MHINA, J

In this suit, the parties are Ayub Samson Sanga t/a Ayub Samson

Enterprise, a resident of Kigamboni Municipality in Dar es Salaam (''hereinafter to

be referred to as the plaintiff") lodged this suit in this Court on 17 January 2023

against KCB Bank Tanzania Limited, the Legal entity doing banking business

("hereinafter to be referred to as the defendant").

The disputed between them are the allegations of the breach of loan

contracts by the defendant and the defendant's intention (by a default

1 | Page
notice) to sell the landed mortgaged property described as Plot No. 55 Block

"K" located at Kariakoo area with a Certificate of Title No. 48728 registered

in the name of the Ayub Samson Sanga.

The background to this matter briefly, as per the pleadings, is as

follows;

The plaintiff alleges that in 2018, he had a loan agreement of TZS.

500,000,000/= granted by the Defendant vide agreement signed on 20

March 2018 with an interest rate of 20%. The loan was divided into a term

loan of TZS 150,000,000, payable within 24 months, and an overdraft facility

of TZS. 350,000,000 for 12 months.

On 11 April 2019, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into another loan

agreement as a continuation of the first loan agreement whereby the

Overdraft Facility was renewed and reduced from TZS. 350,000,000/= to

TZS. 175,000,000/=, and by then, having partly repaid the Term Loan, the

same had been restructured to TZS. 265,501,000/=. The chargeable interest

was increased to 21%, a conduct which violates banking regulations and

norms. Further, Defendant unilaterally and without any reason adduced

thereof and consent obtained, increased the chargeable interest from 21%

to 22% and continued charging for the whole life of the agreement, an act

2 | Page
which violated the provisions of the agreement, the banking regulations and

norms.

He further alleges that by another agreement dated 18 March 2020,

when the business environment had become so difficult and unable to

sustain the Overdraft Facility arrangement, they agreed to convert both the

Overdraft Facility and Term Loan to one Term Loan of TZS. 409,613,000/=

payable within 36 months at an interest of 21 %.

After the above agreement, the business stalled because of the COVID-

19 pandemic; Plaintiff could not repay the loan and informed Defendant

officially vide a letter dated 21 April 2020. In the letter, Plaintiff requested

Defendant to grant an extension of loan repayment until business conditions

came to normality.

As a result, Defendant prepared an addendum to the agreement of 27

July 2020; the Term Loan amount was increased to TZS—433,529,000/=

arising from capitalization of arrears. The repayment tenure was extended

by three months, from 30 July 2020 to 30 October 2020, so the first

instalment was to start after that with the interest of 21% per annum.

From above, the plaintiffs complained that there was a breach of the

loan contract because;

3 | Page
 One, the defendant, being aware of the Plaintiff's financial

difficulties arising from an unfavourable business situation created by the

COVID-19 pandemic, increased chargeable interest from 20% to 21% while

knowing that the agreement was a continuation of the previous loan contrary

to banking and financial regulations and norms.

Two, whereas the amount of money lent was as it was

amalgamated to TZS. 433,529,000/=, as In the agreement and addendum,

the Bank Statement shows that the amount of the loan was inflated to TZS.

439,160,957.02, which was an unsolicited and unwarranted increase of TZS.

5,631957.02.

Three, from the Bank Statement, Defendant did not honour its

obligation regarding the three-month grace period starting from 30th July

2020 and ending on 30 October 2020 as per the addendum because it

started deducting payments from deposits straightaway from the date of

disbursement beginning on 30th July 2020.

Fourth, the agreed interest as per the agreements, as well as the

addendum being 21% per annum, but as per the Bank Statement, the

Defendant charged the interest at the rate of 22% per annum.

Furthermore, the plaintiff alleges that on 1 June 2022, he wrote

4 | Page
to the defendant complaining of dishonouring the grace period, illegal charge

of interest and penalties not contained in the agreement and wrongfully

alleged over-disbursement asking the Defendant to consider the matters and

rectify the errors.

Instead of remedying the situation, the Defendant issued a

Statutory 60 days' Notice of Default dated 17 October 2022, demanding

immediate payment of TZS. 119,306,462.04; otherwise, the plaintiff's

mortgaged property would be subject to the powers of the Defendant,

including sale to realize the amount.

The allegations above, triggered the plaintiff to seek relief from this

Court. He now prays for Judgment and Decree against the defendant for the

following reliefs;

/’ A declaration order that as per the whole of the above, the

Defendant is in breach of contract.
ii. A declaration order that the purported notice is in effective
for contravening the loan agreements.
Hi. An order that the Defendant having violated the grace
period, inflating the amount ofdisbursement, overcharging
interests as well as inflicting penalties all those not
provided by the contracts as stated above, the same be
Ordered to waive all interests charged ab initio.

5 | Page
 iv. From (Hi) above, an order that the loan repayment be
calculated and effected on the principal loan only
v. An order that the Defendant returns all monies unlawfully
deducted from the Plaintiffs account as interest and
penalties or in the alternative, convert them as deposits to
reduce the loan debt minus interests as prayed in (Hi)
above
vi. Interest of 15% per annum on (Hi) from the date of filing
of suit to date ofjudgment
vii. Interest of 15% per annum on (vi) from the date of
judgment to date of final settlement
viii. In the alternative to the above prayers in (Hi), (iv), (v), (vi)
(vii) hereinabove, a declaration order that the Plaintiffis no
longer indebted to the Defendant
ix. Permanent injunction against the Defendant from
interfering with peaceful enjoyment of the suit land known
as Plot No. 55 Block "K" Certificate of Tide No. 4872.
x. Costs
xi. Any other reliefs.

In the written statement of defence, the defendant vehemently

disputed the claims. Briefly he replied that all terms and conditions applied

to the plaintiff were as per the signed facility letter subject to the transaction

between the parties. Further, the transactions between the parties were

6 | P age
according to the law and good Banking practices and at no instance, the

defendant acted in any manner to jeopardize the interest of the plaintiff.

The controversy above put the parties at issue; therefore, on the first

day of the hearing, the following issues were framed and agreed upon by

the parties and were accordingly recorded by this court for the determination

of this suit namely:

i. Whether or not there is a breach of contracts between the

parties.

ii. To what reliefs the parties are entitled.

At the hearing the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Amin Mohamed

Mshana, learned advocate while the defendant was represented by Mr.

Anindumi Jonas Semu, also a learned advocate.

In support of his case, the plaintiff called only one (1) witness; Ayub

Samson Sanga (the plaintiff), who testified as PW1, whereas in a bid to

support his case, the defendant also called one (1); Avitus Ernest Kyaruzi,

the defendant's Senior Manager of Securities and Documentations, who

testified as DW1.

7 ] Pa ge
 In his testimony (PWl), Ayub Samson Sanga testified that he

entered loan agreement with the defendant in which after the loan advanced
।
to him, the defendant breached the terms of that the loan contract.

He narrated that in the agreement the agreed payable interest was

21% per annum but the defendant deducted 22% per annum from his

account. When he complained about that interest, he was informed to ignore

the interest shown in the loan agreement for the reason that the interest

charged was already set in the defendant's computer programs.

Further, they agreed to have a grace period of three months, from 31

July 2020, the date when the loaned money was disbursed into his account.

But the defendant breached that term by starting to deduct on the same

day, the loan money deposited into his account.

PW1 also testified that the amount of loan demanded by the defendant

to be repaid was contrary to the loan agreement. The loan agreed was TZS.

433,000,000 as a round figure but the defendant requested the repayment

of TZS. 439,000,000/=.

In total, PW1 stated that he entered with the defendant four loan

agreements; in the years 2018, 2019 (two times) and in 2020.

8 | Page
 To start with the loan agreement of the year 2018, he testified that

the amount was TZS. 500,000,000/=. To that effect, he tendered;

Z Loan agreement between the plaintiffand defendant dated

13 March 2018 as Exhibit Pl

On 11 April 2019, he signed another loan agreement with the

defendant. It was a restructuring of the 2018 loan agreement. The

agreement had TZS. 265,500,100/= as a term loan and TZS. 175,000,000/=

as an overdraft facility. He stated that at that time doing business was very

difficult, therefore he agreed with the terms of restructuring. The total

amount was TZS. 440,000,000/= because he had already paid TZS.

60,000,000/= in the first loan agreement. To that effect, he tendered;

Z Loan agreement between the plaintiffand defendant dated

11 April 2019 (Renewal of overdraft facility and
restructuring of the term loan as Exhibit P2.

PW1 further testified that he was servicing the loan every month

without any default. He was paying according to the payment schedule. To

that effect, he tendered;

Z Payment schedule and the Bank statement as collectively

Exhibit P3.

9 | Page
 On that Bank statement he testified that the interest chargeable shown

was 22%. Further, it was indicated that the loan money was deposited into

his account on 30 July 2020. But on the same date TZS. 12,400,000/= was

deducted as a loan repayment. Again, on the same date, TZS. 16,180,000/=

and TZS. 15,775,000/= were deducted. Also, TZS. 4,778,000/= was

deducted as other charges.

On October 2020, TZS. 109,000/= was deducted by the defendant and

on 20 November 2020, also TZS. 9,970,000/= was deducted.

He testified that all deduction were done while the grace period of

three months was yet to expire.

On 27 July 2020, he entered another loan agreement with the

defendant after he informed the defendant the difficulties, he was facing in

his business due to Covid 19 pandemic. Therefore, in the agreement he was

provided a grace period of three months before starting to repay the loan.

To that effect, he tendered;

i. Addendum letter (Amendment to the facility agreement

dated 16 March 2020) between the plaintiff and the
defendant dated 27 July 2020 as Exhibit P4.

10 | P a g e
 He further testified that the amount in the loan agreement was TZS.

433, 529,000/= but the Bank statement indicated that the amount deposited

was TZS. 439,180,000/=; therefore, he did not know where the additional

TZS. 5,000,000/= came from. Further, the interest imposed was 22%

contrary to what they agreed.

Again, on 16 March 2020, there was a loan contract which was the

restructuring of the previous loan agreement. To that effect, he tendered;

Z Loan agreement between the plaintiffand defendant dated

16 March 2020 as Exhibit P5.

After all controversies, he wrote a letter to the defendant complaining

that they were acting against the terms of the loan agreement. Therefore,

he requested the defendant to waive the interest so that he can pay the

principal amount. To that effect, he tendered;

Z The letter dated 1 June 2022 from the plaintiff to the

defendant as Exhibit P6.

The Bank did not respond and he decided to sent a reminder letter.

Later, the defendant served him with a loan default notice. To that effect,

he tendered;

Z Default notice dated 17 October 2022 as Exhibit P7.

11 ] P a g e
 He was given sixty (60) days to pay TZS. 271, 000,000/= and in case

of failure, the defendant would sell his property.

Regarding the property, he testified that in the loan agreements there

was no clause in respect of selling of his property.

He concluded by testifying that his business suffered a major set back

as a result in August 2020, he failed to pay the salary of his staff which

resulted into their resignation. Also, his business failed to expand and his

status went down.

Therefore, he prayed for this Court to order the waiver of interest so

that he can proceed to pay only the principal because the defendant charged

that interest contrary to the agreement. The defendant to compensate him

for the loss due to the breach of contract.

Also, the defendant to refund the money which they withdrew

unlawfully from his account contrary to the terms of the loan agreement.

And last the defendant should return back his title deed.

In the defence case, DW1, Avitus Ernest Kyaruzi, testified that the

plaintiff, Ayub Samson Sanga t/a Ayub Samson Enterprises took a loan in

their bank.

12 | P a g e
 He stated that Exhibit P2 was a loan agreement between the plaintiff

and the defendant dated 11 April 2019.

The agreement was for two kinds of loans advanced to the plaintiff.

The first was an overdraft of TZS 175,000,000/=. It was the second overdraft

facility after the plaintiff executed the first one. The second was a term loan

of TZS. 265,000,001/=. It was the restructuring of the first-term loan.

The aim of the overdraft was to run the foodstuff/ grain crops business,

and the term loan was to service the loans properly, both the term loan and

overdraft. The overdraft term was for 12 months, and the term loan was for

36 months. The term loan had a facility fee of 1%.

DW1 further testified that after issued the loan to the plaintiff he did

not fulfill the terms because of the failure to repay the loan on time which

which resulted the loan to became a default loan. After that default, they

served the plaintiff with a demand notice (Exhibit P7), requesting him to

repay the loan within two months and in case of default the bank would

proceed to auction the mortgaged properties.

He concluded by testifying that, after the plaintiff was served with the

default notice, he decided to file the case. But the plaintiff's claims have no

13 | P a g e
merits because he took the loan therefore, he must repay that loan with

interest as per the agreement.

When he was cross-examined, he stated that the loan was TZ

175,000,000/= and TZS 265,510,000/=, thus total was TZS 440,570,000/=

with an interest of 21%. Also, he stated that the repayment for the term

loan was TZS 10,147,292/46 as a monthly repayment for the period 36

months.

Further, when he was cross-examined regarding exhibit P3 he stated

that the Bank statement did not indicate 21%. The document indicated

interest to be 22.0000.

On re-examination, he stated that the actual amount deducted as

interest was indicated in the content of the instalments of the loan

repayment. It included interest, arrears, penalties, compound interest and

monthly charges.

In a nutshell and briefly, that was the evidence from both the plaintiff

and defendants' witnesses.

At the end of the hearing, the parties filed the final submissions to

clarify their cases.

14 | P a g e
 In this suit, the evidence indicates that the relationship between the

plaintiff and the defendant's Bank started on 13 March 2018, when they

entered into a loan agreement.

The relationship was actuated by a banking facility dated 13 March

2018 (Exhibit Pl). The loan granted was split into an overdraft facility of

TZS. 350,000,000/= and a term loan of TZS. 150,000,000/=.

The overdraft facility should be repaid within 12 months, while the

term loan within 24 months. The interest for both was 20% per annum.

The security for the facility was the Legal Mortgage over a landed

property on Plot No. 55 Block "K" Kariakoo with Certificate of Title No.

48728.

Again, on 11 April 2019, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to

renew the overdraft facility and restructure the term loan (Exhibit P2).

The purpose of the renewal of the overdraft was for working capital in a

business while the restructuring of the term loan was to facilitate smooth

repayment and reduction of the hardcore element. It was after the portion

of the overdraft facility and the existing term loan were combined.

15 | P a g e
 For the renewal of the overdraft, the amount was TZS.

175,000,000/= payable within 12 months, and for the term loan, the

amount was TZS. 265,501,000/= payable within 36 months. The interest

I

for both was 21% per annum, with the legal mortgage remaining the

same.

On 16 March 2020, the parties entered into another agreement. At

that time, the term loan was reviewed, and with the amalgamation of the

existing overdraft facility (Exhibit P5). Thus, the restructuring was done,

and the amount was TZS. 409,613,000/= to be payable within 36 months

with an interest rate of 21% per annum. The legal mortgagee remained

the same.

On 27 July 2020, the parties agreed to amend the facility agreement

of 16 March 2020 (Exhibit P5). At this time, the approved facility was the

term loan (restructuring with capitalization of arrears). The agreed amount

was TZS 433,529,000/=with an interest of 21% per annum. Also, there

was a three-month moratorium period before repaying the loan. The legal

mortgagee remained the same.

16 | P a g e
 From above, it is quite clear that there is no dispute that there were

loan agreements between the parties, and the last one was amended on

27 July 2020.

The question is whether there was a breach of contract on the part

of the defendant, as alleged by the plaintiff. In his evidence, the plaintiff

complained about the following issues, which he stated was a breach of

the agreement.

One, the defendant started to deduct money before the expiry of the

grace period.

Two, the defendant charged the interest of 22% instead of 21% as

per the agreement.

Three, the notice of default contravened the loan agreements as

there was no clause to sell the mortgaged property.

The three sub-issues above will determine the first issue I framed.

Therefore, in the determination, I will start with the first sub-issue.

On this, I will sail and be guided by the principle enunciated under

section 110 (1) of the Evidence Act as a standard in proving a case.

The section reads;

17 | P a g e
 "Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or
liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must
prove that those facts exist."

Similarly, I will be guided by the case of Hemedi Sard vs.

Mohamedi Mbilu (1984) TLR 113, where it was held that;

"He who alleged must prove the allegations."

Therefore, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff's side who made

the allegations.

Starting with the first sub-issue, the defendant in his evidence, when

the loan as per exhibit P5 was disbursed into his account on 30 July 2020,

on the same date TZS. 12, 400,000/=, TZS. 16, 180, 000/=, TZS.

15,775,000/= 4,778,000/= were deducted, respectively.

In October 2020, again, TZS. 109,000/= were deducted, and on 20

November 2020, TZS. 9,970,000/= were deducted.

He alleged that the defendant deducted the same while the grace

period of three months was yet to expire. He tendered the Bank Statement

(Exhibit P3).

18 ] P a g e
 On his side, DW1 did not say anything regarding the deductions

before the expiration of the grace period.

Having gone through exhibit P3, it is quite clear that on 30 July 2020,

after loan money was deposited into the plaintiff's account, there were

deductions as follows;

i. On 30 July 2020, TZS. 12,401,555/23 as loan repayment.

ii. On 30 July 2020, TZS. 16,180,804/70 as a loan repayment.

iii. On 30 July 2020, TZS. 15,775,768/28 as a loan repayment

iv. On 30 July 2020, TZS. 15,383,797/55 as loan repayment.

In my opinion, that was contrary to what was agreed on 27 July 2020

between the parties because the plaintiff was given a grace period of three

months before starting to repay the loan.

Further, as per exhibit P3, after the deductions, the remaining

amount was TZS. 374, 640, 830/94 after TZS. TZS. 64,520,136/08 were

deducted on the same date.

On the second sub-issue, the background of the parties regarding

interest is as follows.

19 [ P a g e
 In the first loan agreement (Exhibit Pl), the interest agreed upon

was 20% per annum. On 11 April 2019, when the parties entered into the

restructuring of the first loan (Exhibit P2), the agreed interest was 21%

per annum.

The same interest was maintained in the agreement of 16 March

2020(Exhibit P5) and the last agreement, another loan restructuring

(Exhibit P4).

In his evidence, the plaintiff complained that the actual interest

charged by the defendant was 22% instead of 21%, as per their

agreement. He tendered the Bank Statement (Exhibit P3) to support his

complaint.

In that bank statement, the interest charged indicated was as follows

I quote;

Interest rate:22. OOOOO

On the other side, when DW1 testified did not say anything regarding

the interest. However, when cross-examined, he stated that the agreed

interest was 21%.

20 | P a g e
 When he was further cross-examined regarding the interest shown in

the bank statement, he stated that it was 22.00000, and the bank

statement did not indicate an interest of 21%.

From the above and having gone through the loan agreements and

the bank statement, it is clear that what was agreed was 21%, but in

actual deductions, as per the statement, the defendant charged 22%.

Therefore, the defendant charged the interest contrary to the

agreement.

Regarding the third sub-issue, the notice of default contravened the

loan agreements as there was no clause to sell the mortgaged property.

This also should not detain me long. First of all, as I alluded to

earlier, there is no dispute that the defendant advanced loans to the

plaintiff and several times they restructured their Ioan agreements upon

the request of the plaintiff. It was after the plaintiff defaulted to repay

according to the payment schedule.

In his evidence, the plaintiff stated that it was because of the

challenges of doing business and the effect of COVID-19. He further stated

that he was served with the default(demand) notice (Exhibit P7).

21 | P a g e
 In that default notice dated 17 October 2022, he was supposed to

repay TZS. 271,000,000/= within 60 days; otherwise, the mortgaged

property would be sold.

On his side, DW1 stated that the plaintiff failed to repay the loan,

resulting in the loan becoming the default. That was why the bank served

the plaintiff with the demand notice.

Therefore, the evidence indicated that the defendant advanced the

loan to the plaintiff.

Further, in that loan, according to Exhibit Pl, P2 and P5, the security

for that loan was the mortgagee deed registered in the defendant's name,

i.e., Plot No. 55 Block "K" Kariakoo with Certificate of Title No. 48728.

Therefore, on that the law is clear under sections 126 (d) and 127 (1)

(2) (d) on the powers of the mortgagor. The provisions read that;

126. Where the mortgagor is in default, the mortgagee may

exercise any of the following remedies -

(d) sell the mortgaged land, but if such mortgaged land is

held under customary right of occupancy, sale shall be
made to any person or group ofpersons referred to in
section 30 of the Village Land Act.

22 ] P a g e
 127.-(1) Where there is a default in the payment of any
interest or any other payment or any part thereof or in the
fulfilment of any condition secured by any mortgage or in the
performance or observation of any covenant, express, powers,
remuneration and duties of the receiver or implied, in any
mortgage, the mortgagee shall serve on the mortgagor a notice
in writing of such default.

(2) (d)that, after the expiry of sixty days following receipt

of the notice by the mortgagor, the entire amount of the claim
will become due and payable, and the mortgagee may exercise
the right to sell the mortgaged land".

Therefore, as per the law above, in case of failure to repay the loan,

the lender is empowered to sell the mortgage.

The Court of Appeal in The National Bank of Commerce vs. Dar

es Salaam Education and Stationery [1995] T. L. R. 272, elaborated

clearly this position that the law empowers the mortgagee to exercise

power to sell the mortgaged property if a mortgagor fails to repay the loan.

23 j P a g e
 From the above discussion, the third sub-issue is decided in negative,
i
The defendant correctly issued the default notice and did not contravene
! ;
the loan agreements.
I I
Flowing from above, since both parties breached the terms of the
।
agreements. I have the following as a way forward.

One, the law governing loans is straight forward that: if you borrow,

you must pay, as it was held by the Court of Appeal in the Private

Agriculture Sector Support Trust and another vs. Kilimanjaro

Cooperative Bank, Consolidated Civil Appeals No. 171 and 172 of 2019

(Tanzlii.) where it was held that;

"The parameters of the loan are pretty straight forward. Ifyou

borrow money, you must ultimately pay it back, in most cases

with interest. There is no shortcut".

Therefore, the plaintiff has the obligation to repay the money

advanced to him by the defendant.

Two, since the interest charged was contrary to what the parties

agreed upon, the parties must go back to their agreement and resort to

the 21% interest as they agreed.

24 | P a g-e
 Therefore, though I hold that the plaintiff is obligated to repay the

loan but the repayment must be calculated according to the agreed

interest of 21%.

Three, in the third sub-issue, I hold that the defendant started to

deduct the money from the plaintiff's account on the very day the money

was disbursed, contrary to the agreement, which provided for the "grace

period" of three months. The money deducted was

On this, on the way forward, I think since it was a new loan rather

than restructuring a previous loan after the plaintiff defaulted to pay within

time. And a total of TZS.64,520,136/08 was deducted from the plaintiff's

account on the date when the loan was disbursed, then there is no liability

for the plaintiff to pay that money. This is because the amount was already

deducted by the defendant.

Going further, as I alluded to earlier, the remaining after the

deduction was TZS. 374, 640, 830/94 and in my opinion, that was the

actual money released and advanced to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the first issue is decided as above.

25 I P a g e
 Turning to the 2nd issue for determination, it is on reliefs to which the

parties are entitled. Therefore, for clarity, I will deal with each relief claimed.

In the first reliefs, the plaintiff prayed;

i. A declaration order that as per the whole of the above, the

Defendant is in breach of contract.

It is a settled legal principle that those who come into equity must

come with clean hands. The principle requires the court to deny equitable

relief to the party who has violated good faith concerning the subject

matter of the claim.

In an American case of Colby Furniture Company Inc vs.

Belinda J. Overton, 299 So. 3d-Ala: Court of Civil Appeals, 2019, the

purpose of the principle was explained as;

7s to prevent a party from obtaining relief when that party's

own wrongful conduct has made it such that granting the relief
would be against equity and good conscience ",

Therefore, while the plaintiff complained that the defendant breached

the contract, he also breached the same several times for failure to repay

the loan. On this, I maintain the position I hold above for the way forward

for each breach done by the plaintiff and the defendant.

26 | P a g e
 For the 2nd and 11th prayers, i.e.

i. A declaration order that the purported notice is in effective

for contravening the loan agreements.
ii. Permanent injunction against the Defendant from
interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the suit land ।
known as Plot No. 55 Block "K" Certificate of Title No. 4872

As I elaborated earlier, since I have found that the mortgage deed as

the security for the loan was a landed property registered in the name of

the plaintiff, i.e. Plot No. 55 Block "K" Kariakoo with Certificate of Title No.

48728 and the defendant failed to repay the loan. Then, the lender was

empowered to issue a default notice and to sell mortgage property. Then,

these prayers are dismissed.

For the 3rd, 4th, 5th and and 8th prayers, i.e

i. An order that the Defendant, having violated the grace

period, inflating the amount of disbursement, overcharging
interests as well as inflicting penalties on all those not
provided by the contracts as stated above, the same be
Ordered to waive all interests charged ab initio.
ii. An order that the loan repayment be calculated and
effected on the principal loan only.

27 | P a g e
 HL An order that the Defendant returns alt monies unlawfully
deducted from the Plaintiff's account as interest and
penalties orf in the alternative, convert them as deposits to
reduce the loan debt minus interests.
iv. A declaration order that the Plaintiff is no longer indebted
to the Defendant.

These prayers were already determined when I disposed of the first

issue of the suit and the way forward; therefore, I don't see a reason to

repeat the same.

In conclusion, the suit is dismissed without costs, but subject to the

directives regarding the interest calculated shall be 21% and, on the

deductions, made on the date when the loan money was disbursed to the

plaintiffs account.

I order accordingly.

18/12/2023

28 | P i . .