{"issue_text":"Whether the matter was properly before the court a quo given the failure to follow stated case procedure","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Parties filed Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues, court proceeded without resolving material disputes"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the trial court considered and decided all matters placed before it, particularly compliance with section 26(1)(a) and (c) of Micro-Finance Act","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Court failed to determine dispute on compliance with Micro-Finance Act requirements"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the court a quo correctly decided issues of currency, interest and the in duplum rule","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Award of 50% monthly interest and 15% default penalty, application of in duplum rule"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
First appellant borrowed US$40,000 from respondent on 31 May 2021, repayable as US$60,000 by 30 June 2021. It paid US$20,000 in September 2021 but defaulted on the balance. Respondent sued claiming US$370,000 capital plus 50% monthly interest and 3% default interest. Magistrates Court awarded the claim. Appellants appeal on grounds including non-compliance with Micro-Finance Act and unlawful interest rates.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases