DAR ES SALAAM: THE Dar es Salaam law firm, Kings Law Chambers, has lodged an application at the High Court’s Commercial Division, demanding over 500m/- from NCBA Bank Tanzania Limited, being professional fees unpaid for prosecuting a commercial dispute.
The amount includes 168,573.33 US dollars which is three per cent of the contentious sum of 4.3 million US dollars in the Commercial Case No. 12 of 2023 in which the law firm rendered professional services and other 25,250 US dollars for attending the taxation session.
The application is before Deputy Registrar Joyce Minde and has been set for mention on July 24, 2024. Advocate Emanuel Makene, who is the Managing Partner of Kings Law Chambers, the applicants, has sworn an affidavit to support the application in question.
He stated that applicants were contracted by NCBA Bank, the respondent, under the Remuneration Agreement (Legal Services Agreement) dated October, 29, 2021 aimed to provide advocate services in consideration of payment of three per cent of the subject matter in case the contentious matter.
“The contract was prepared by the respondent which the applicants signed. Applicants did not request the respondent for any assignment.
It was the respondent’s unilateral decision to contract the applicants after other lawyers lost similar case,” Advocate Makene stated in the affidavit.
He explained that the respondent forced the applicant to pay for professional indemnity insurance cover which covered professional indemnity in favour of the respondent valued from 800m/- up to 1bn/-. Such professional insurance, the advocate stated, will indemnify the respondent up to 800m/- in case the respondent loses the court cases due to professional wrongs committed by the applicants.
Also read: Appeal Court backs ruling on illegal drug traffickers
“The applicants paid 8,260,000/- for one year of the remuneration agreement to the insurance company, called Britam Insurance Tanzania Limited.
The Applicants are obliged to pay Britam Insurance Tanzania Limited 8,260,000/- in every year during the life of the Remuneration Agreement,” he stated.
According to him, it is a fact that the applicants represented the respondent in a very difficult and complex case which the respondent was suing the borrowers and the respondent was claiming more than 4,265,625 US dollars.
The advocate stated that the cause of dispute arose on March 7, 2024 when the respondent refused to pay the applicants 168,573.33 US dollars, which is three per cent of the contentious sum of 4,265,625 US dollars, as contracted under Renumeration Agreement dated October 29, 2021 to be agreed professional advocate fees.
“The Commercial Case No. 12 of 2023 (the main case) was a complex, difficult, complicated, confusing, troublesome, tough , argumentative, with dark facts, challenging, demanding, laborious, hard , with urgency of the contentious business required physical effort, brain power and heavy burden more than climbing Mt. Everest on a difficult journey… “…The case was also more complex because Respondent advanced credit to borrowers valued at 3.25 million US dollars without mortgaging any landed properties as security from borrowers,” the advocate stated in the affidavit.
He stated further that the main case was difficult and complexity in nature knowing that insurer (UAP Insurance Tanzania Limited) who was the part to the loan agreement between respondent and borrowers.
The insurer was sued by respondent in a Commercial Case No. 131 of 2018, purposely without joining the borrowers and the respondent lost the case. “This was simply because the respondent was helping the borrowers to run away with the Respondent’s money,” Advocate Makene stated adding, “The main case was of utmost urgency of the contentions business because the time limit for suing under the Credit Facility (Loan Agreement) was about to expire.”
He stated that the respondent instructed the applicants to register the case in court before December 2022 or immediately but not later than February 2023, yet the Respondent was neither in position to pay the Applicants even advance advocate fees nor court fees as per the Remuneration Agreement.
The lawyer explained that the court fees were paid by the Applicants from their funds in the CRDB Bank Account and the Respondent failed to pay court fees which were 10,200,000/-.
He also stated that the main case was complex and complicated because the Respondent mishandled the loan agreement with borrowers by many ways.
Furthermore, the Advocate stated that the main case was very sensitive matter because the Respondent submitted Bills of Lading of all 25 HIGER Buses, which could be used as security to the loan against borrowers, contrary to the existing Loan Agreements signed between Respondent, borrowers and the insurer.
“This enabled the borrowers to sell all 25 HIGER Buses without depositing even a single US Dollar in the Respondent’s bank account.
Note that this fact that the 25 HIGER buses were the subject matter of the Loan Agreement between Respondent, Borrowers and the Insurer,” he stated.
