Amin v Joanes and Another (Civil Case No. 159 of 1938) [1938] EACA 183 (1 January 1938)
Court
East African Court of Appeal
Case number
Civil Case No. 159 of 1938
Judge
Thacker J
The court held that the contract was unenforceable because it failed to state the date of the loan and did not express the interest rate as a rate per centum per annum, both being material requirements under section 10 of the Moneylenders Ordinance, 1932. The omission of the date was a material defect, and the contract could not be supplemented by external documents such as the acknowledgment letter. The acknowledgment letter of 15th September, 1937, while confirming the debt, only contained a conditional undertaking to repay ('we will try our best to liquidate the loan'), which did not satis…
Tricumdass v Official Assignee and Another (C.A. 19/1934.) [1937] EACA 175 (1 January 1937)
Court
East African Court of Appeal
Case number
C.A. 19/1934.
Judge
Abrahams CJ, Ag P (Uganda), Law, C.J (Zanzibar), McDougall, Ag. C.J. (Tanganyika)
The Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa held that a moneylender’s mortgage was unenforceable for non-compliance with Zanzibar’s Moneylenders Decree section 10.
Ram and Son v Singh and Another (C.A. 17/1934.) [1935] EACA 42 (1 January 1935)
Court
East African Court of Appeal
Case number
C.A. 17/1934.
Judges
Abrahamas, C.J. (Tanganyika), Law, C.J (Zanzibar), Sheridan, P
The appellants, by their own pleading, are general moneylenders and do not fall within the exception of section 2(1)(b) of the Moneylenders Ordinance, 1932. The transaction was a loan secured by a chattels mortgage, and the appellants failed to demonstrate that their business was bona fide confined to lending money on mortgages. Section 10 of the Ordinance requires a separate note or memorandum in writing, signed by the borrower, containing all terms of the contract including the date of the loan. The only document produced was the chattels mortgage, which did not specify the date the loan wa…