The Court of Appeal has recently quashed a highly questionable ruling of the Registrar of the High Court of Zanzibar who had reduced the bill in 2017 to $5.7 million (about Sh13.1 billion).
Three justices of appeal Stella Mugasha, Ignas Kitusi and Sam Rumanyika could not hide their displeasure over a three-decade delay in paying Laemthong Rice Co. Ltd which supplied rice to the Zanzibar government.
“This matter does not speak very well of timely justice,” said the justices in their recent decision.
The Court of Appeal has rejected government’s attempts to lower the amount and insisted they stand by December 2000 order of the High Court for the Zanzibar government to pay the rice supplier $69 million.
Yesterday, Zanzibar Minister of State in the President’s Office responsible for Finance and Planning, Saada Salum Mkuya admitted she was aware of the case but could not give the ministry’s position because she has not seen the judgment. ”I know about the issue but I have not seen that judgment, so I cannot say anything,” said the minister.
Zanzibar orders rice
The transaction of what would later turn to be one of the long delayed cases was made on July 23, 1985 when the Zanzibar government ordered for 39,900 tonnes of rice at $12.9 million, with a 25 percent interest annually.
According to court records it took quite a long time for the Isles government to fulfil its contractual obligation as it delayed to make full payment of the ordered rice.
Left with no option, the Bankok-based company brought a suit against the Zanzibar government in efforts to have the Zanzibar authorities settle the debt.
The reason why the dispute has remained pending in courts for many years can be explained by Zanzibar’s government’s refusal to accept the $69 million at wanted it reduced to 45.7 million.
There were also issues on how the execution should be carried out.
After dragging for years in court, the High Court ordered on December 18, 2000, that the Zanzibar Government has to pay the Thailand company the balance and the accumulated interest that totaled $69 million.
Execution fails
Even after the court’s clear position, execution of the decree proved to be a nightmare and the amount to be paid remained a deadlock.
This came after the Registrar of the High Court, in a total disregard of the 2000 court decision, issued a certificate for the amount of $5.7 million purporting it to be the amount Mkusa J had ordered in a previous ruling.
At the hearing of an appeal that sought to challenge the decision of the registrar, lawyer for Laemthong Rice Co., Ltd., Juma Nassoro argued that neither Mkusa J nor the parties could vary the decree.
The rice company had gone further to challenge the Registrar’s decision by way of reference to the High Court but was dismissed by Judge Mohammed.
The lawyer argued that the matter, having reached the Court of Appeal, it was an error for the High Court to decline to fault the Registrar’s certification of $45.7 million instead of $69 million.
With reference to the case of Victoria Real Estate Development Limited vs Tanzania Investment Bank & 3 others, Mr Nassoro argued that parties may not vary a court decree by settlement as such powers are only enjoyed before the court makes its decision.
Appeal court rejects altered $45.7 million
“From the concurrent arguments of Messrs Nassoro and Hassan for the appellant and respondent respectively, the ruling by the Registrar certifying 45.7 million was wrong whatever arguments that had been put forward,” said justices of appeal.
The rice was delivered in three shipments between 1986 and 1988. Efforts by the firm to secure settlement of the debt has proved futile over 37 years although the Zanzibar government did not deny the debt but actually acknowledged it on 15 May, 1996.
The company thereafter sued the Zanzibar government in the High Court claiming for $69 million together with interest at 25 percent annually from January 1997 until full payment.
It is on record that the Zanzibar government which was being represented by the Attorney General Chambers in Zanzibar, failed to file any defence due to his lack of cooperation with the chambers.
This led to the chamber withdrawing in frustration and to an ex-parte judgment.
“The above has remained the position, the learned Registrar had no powers to alter the ex-parte judgment and decree of the High Court, nor the previous order of this court in this case.
“Similarly, in dismissing the application for reference, the High Court abdicated its duty to correct the Registrar’s manifest error.
“For those reasons, we allow this appeal. Consequently, we quash the Registrar’s ruling as well as the ruling of the High Court. We set aside the certification of $5.7 million and stand by our judgment dated 18 December, 2000,” said the judges.
Share this news
This Year’s Most Read News Stories
Air Tanzania Banned From EU Airspace Due to Safety Concerns
Several airports have since locked Air Tanzania, dealing a severe blow to the Tanzanian national carrier that must now work overtime to regain its certification or go the wet lease way
The European Commission has announced the inclusion of Air Tanzania on the EU Air Safety List, effectively banning the airline from operating in European airspace.
The decision, made public on December 16, 2024, is based on safety concerns identified by the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which also led to the denial of Air Tanzania’s application for a Third Country Operator (TCO) authorisation.
The Commission did not go into the specifics of the safety infringement but industry experts suggest it is possible that the airline could have flown its Airbus A220 well past its scheduled major checks, thus violating the airworthiness directives.
“The decision to include Air Tanzania in the EU Air Safety List underscores our unwavering commitment to ensuring the highest safety standards for passengers in Europe and worldwide,” said Apostolos Tzitzikostas, EU Commissioner for Sustainable Transport and Tourism.
“We strongly urge Air Tanzania to take swift and decisive action to address these safety issues. I have offered the Commission’s assistance to the Tanzanian authorities in enhancing Air Tanzania’s safety performance and achieving full compliance with international aviation standards.”
Air Tanzania has a mixed fleet of modern aircraft types including Boeing 787s, 737 Max jets, and Airbus A220s.
It has been flying the B787 Dreamliner to European destinations like Frankfurt in Germany and Athens in Greece and was looking to add London to its growing list with the A220.
But the ban not only scuppers the London dream but also has seen immediate ripple effect, with several airports – including regional like Kigali and continental – locking out Air Tanzania.
Tanzania operates KLM alongside the national carrier.
The European Commission said Air Tanzania may be permitted to exercise traffic rights by using wet-leased aircraft of an air carrier which is not subject to an operating ban, provided that the relevant safety standards are complied with.
A wet lease is where an airline pays to use an aircraft with a crew, fuel, and insurance all provided by the leasing company at a fee.
Two more to the list
The EU Air Safety List, maintained to ensure passenger safety, is updated periodically based on recommendations from the EU Air Safety Committee.
The latest revision, which followed a meeting of aviation safety experts in Brussels from November 19 to 21, 2024, now includes 129 airlines.
Of these, 100 are certified in 15 states where aviation oversight is deemed insufficient, and 29 are individual airlines with significant safety deficiencies.
Alongside Air Tanzania, other banned carriers include Air Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe), Avior Airlines (Venezuela), and Iran Aseman Airlines (Iran).
Commenting on the broader implications of the list, Tzitzikostas stated, “Our priority remains the safety of every traveler who relies on air transport. We urge all affected airlines to take these bans seriously and work collaboratively with international bodies to resolve the identified issues.”
In a positive development, Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) has been cleared to resume operations in the EU following a four-year suspension. The ban, which began in 2020, was lifted after substantial improvements in safety performance and oversight by PIA and the Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority (PCAA).
“Since the TCO Authorisation was suspended, PIA and PCAA have made remarkable progress in enhancing safety standards,” noted Tzitzikostas. “This demonstrates that safety issues can be resolved through determination and cooperation.”
Another Pakistani airline, Airblue Limited, has also received EASA’s TCO authorisation.
Decisions to include or exclude airlines from the EU Air Safety List are based on rigorous evaluations of international safety standards, particularly those established by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
The process involves thorough review and consultation among EU Member State aviation safety experts, with oversight from the European Commission and support from EASA.
“Where an airline currently on the list believes it complies with the required safety standards, it can request a reassessment,” explained Tzitzikostas. “Our goal is not to penalize but to ensure safety compliance globally.”
Airlines listed on the EU Air Safety List face significant challenges to their international operations, as the bans highlight shortcomings in safety oversight by their home regulatory authorities.
For Air Tanzania, this inclusion signals an urgent need for reform within Tanzania’s aviation sector to address these deficiencies and align with global standards.
The path forward will require immediate and sustained efforts to rectify safety concerns and regain access to one of the world’s most critical aviation markets.
Source: allafrica.com
Huduma Zimezorota Hospitali Ya Rufaa Mnazi Mmoja Zanzibar
Huduma katika Hospitali ya Rufaa ya Mnazi Mmoja Zanzibar zimezidi kuzorota huku wananchi wengi wakilalamikia uongozi wa Hospitali hiyo na watendaji wake.Continue Reading
Britam half-year net profit hits Sh2bn on higher investment income
Insurer and financial services provider Britam posted a 22.5 percent jump in net earnings for the half-year ended June 2024, to Sh2 billion, buoyed by increased investment income.
The rise in half-year net profit from Sh1.64 billion posted in a similar period last year came on the back of net investment income rising 2.5 times to Sh13.27 billion from Sh5.3 billion.
“We are confident in the growth and performance trend that Britam has achieved, supported by its subsidiaries in Kenya and the region. Our business is expanding its revenue base while effectively managing costs,” Britam Chief Executive Officer Tom Gitogo said.
“Our customer-centric approach is fueling growth in our customer base and product uptake, particularly through micro-insurance, partnerships, and digital channels.”
The investment income growth was fueled by interest and dividend income rising 34 percent to Sh9.1 billion, which the insurer attributed to growth in revenue and the gains from the realignment of the group’s investment portfolio.
Britam also booked a Sh3.79 billion gain on financial assets at a fair value, compared with a Sh1.8 billion loss posted in a similar period last year.
The increased investment income helped offset the 12.7 percent decline in net insurance service result to Sh2.13 billion in the wake of claims paid out rising at a faster pace than that of premiums received.
Britam said insurance revenue, which is money from written premiums, increased to Sh17.8 billion from Sh16.6 billion, primarily driven by growth in the Kenya insurance business and regional general insurance businesses, which contributed 30 percent of the revenue.
The group has a presence in seven countries in Africa namely Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda, South Sudan, Mozambique, and Malawi.
Britam’s insurance service expense hit Sh13.6 billion from Sh11.3 billion, while net insurance finance expenses rose 2.6 times to Sh12.3 billion during the same period.
“Net insurance finance expenses increased mainly due to growth in interest cost for the deposit administration business driven by better investment performance. This has also been impacted by a decline in the yield curve, which has led to an increase in the insurance contract liabilities. The increase has been offset by a matching increase in fair value gain on assets,” said Britam.
Britam’s growth in profit is in line with that of other Nairobi Securities Exchange-listed insurers, which have seen a rise in profits.
Jubilee Holdings net profit in the six months increased by 22.7 percent to Sh2.5 billion on increased income from insurance, helping the insurer maintain Sh2 per share interim dividend.
CIC Insurance Group posted a 0.64 percent rise in net profit to Sh709.99 million in the same period as net earnings of Liberty Kenya nearly tripled to Sh632 million from Sh213 million, while Sanlam Kenya emerged from a loss to post a Sh282.2 million net profit.
