Robato
JF-Expert Member
- Jun 5, 2012
- 383
- 233
Binadamu anajaribiwa, huyu hajaribiwi.
Binadamu anajaribiwa, huyu hajaribiwi.KAZI HII SIYO YA RAIS PEKE YAKE NI YA SISI SOTE. RAIS PEKE YAKE HAWEZI KUPAMBANA NA HAWA WEZI WALIOACHIWA MUDA MREFU BILA YA KUSHUGHULIKIWA. ATAWEZAJE KUTEKELEZA KAZI HII NGUMU KUPAMBANA NA WATU WENYE PESA NYINGI AMBAO WANAWEZA HATA KUWALIPA MAWAKILI WA SERIKALI, NA HUKU ANAJENGEWA UKUTA? RAIS NI BINIADAM KAMA SISI SIO SUPPER HUMAN. WATANZANIA TUKISIMAMA KWA PAMOJA HAWA WENYE PESA HAWEZI KUTUNUNUA SISI WOTE. RAIS ASICHAGUE NANI WA KUMUTUMBUA WOTE WALIO NA MAKOSA YA KUHUJUMU UCHUMI WOTE WAJIELEZE NA MALI ZAO ZISHIKWE.
Nasikitika sana kwa kweli,, inauma sana.
Waliosababisha natamani kama walifanya kwa makusudi ili kutukomoa basi wawajibishwe. Ni mzigo mkubwa sana kwa walipa kodi kulipa vitu visivyoeleweka.
Naamini kabisa uongozi uliopo madarakani utafanya kila liwezekanalo kuondoa mzigo huu usiwaangukie walalahoi.
Hela yote hii kama ingewekezwa kwenye elimu ingejenga shule nyingi sana, ingeingizwa kwenye afya ni vijiji vingi vingepata zahanati na madawa bure kabisa.
Ingeweza hata kuingizwa kati ya viwanda vilivyokufa na kufufua kimoja wapo na tukapiga hatua moja mbele.
Hapana kwenye mkataba kuna kitu kinaitwa privity, mimi nikisaini mkataba na wewe ukanipangisha nyumba ikitokea mimi nimefariki auna mkataba na mwanafamilia yoyote yule anaenihusu na upo huru kuvunja mkataba; na ikitokea wewe umetangulia mimi pia sina mkataba na mrithi wako those are rules of privity of contracts kuondoa third party claims (unless hiyo nchi ina sheria husika inayotoa maelezo ya third party).
Kwa hivyo mkataba wa TANESCO na IPTL ni agreement between those two parties (na IPTL imesajiliwa Tanzania majina ya owners wake yatakuwa BRELA).
Sasa mtu mwingine kudai na yeye ni mmiliki wa IPTL kutokana na nyaraka gani sijui alizopewa kwanza aliondoi ubia wa VIP na pili umiliki wake is disputable kama IPTL wako tayari kulipa deni maana kisheria atambuliki kwa sababu hayuko kwenye jina la usajili wala wa IPTL ata ukienda BRELA. Hizo actions wanazofungua kimataifa na kusikilizwa ni kutambua kwamba awawezi shinda hiyo kesi Tanzania na pili hazina mantiki na kwa sababu Rugemalira ajaenda kutaka kupambana naye in short SCB hana kesi ya umiliki labda deni.
Hiyo mihemko yake aishie kuitumia humu humu tu, akijaribu kuleta mahali pasipo stahili hasa kwa hawa foreigners atatuletea hasara kubwa sana.Mkuu sijui atakuja na lipi maana kesha sema hajaribiwi na watu wanaendelea kumjaribu, kuna mwingine alisema anadai akaambiwa halipwi ng'oo, waache kumsumbua "hapa kazi tu" sio madai tu.
.....Nchi itatikisika .
Wale wazee wa 'vijesenti vya ugoro' na 'pesa ya mboga' ndio wakalipe.., sio kutiana umasikini namna hii
Truly Rais Magufuli ana kazi kubwa!!!! sasa wale waliopiga hela wakaenda kuzivicha nje kama Australia na kwingineko kwani waliochukuwa kutoka kwa Mkombozi wanajulikana lakini kwa ile benk ingine watavichuliwa tu, kwani nini mtanzani wa kawaida alipe deni la bil 302 kwa makosa ya Wa Tz walafi na wasiojali maslahi ya taifa lao!!!Duh!! mwaka huu wetuuu. Watu wameficha pesa na madeni yanaongezeka bila kusahau majanga kama tetemeko na njaa.....hapakaxituuu
Katika hili suala!ukweli nikwamba TANESCO nilazima walipe watalipaje?hilo nisuala jingine, TANESCO baada ya kuona wana kuwa over charged na IPTL kwania njema wakafungua mashtaka against IPTL ndipo wakaamriwa badala ya hizo pesa kulipwa direct kwa IPTL ifunguliwe escrow account ambayo TANESCO wataendelea kulipa huko hadi kesi ya msingi itapo amuliwa!kabla hata kesi ya msingi haijaamuliwa zile pesa za escrow zikatolewa nakusahau msingi wakuanzisha hiyo account, wenye akili zao walipaza sauti sana kwamba hizo pesa ni za serikali kwa maana kwamba TANESCO nimali ya serikali! wajuaji wakajitoa ufahamu kwamba si pesa za serikali huku wakijisahaulisha sababu za kuanzisha escrow account!hata pesa zilivyogawiwa kwa watu wasio husika na sababu za hiyo escrow account, wenye akili zao waliendelea kupaza sauti kwamba mnawalipa watu wasio husika lakini hii kesi itakapo amuliwa msije shangaa TANESCO kudaiwa tena, bahati nzuri Mungu hamfichi mnafiki Leo yame kuwa zile pesa ambazo zingelipa deni zimeishia kuliwa! Jee nani sasa anahusika kulipa hili deni? TANESCO walikuwa muda wote wanatekeleza amri ya ku deposit pesa kwenye escrow account ambayo Leo hii ndio ingetumika kulipa deni, jee ni nani aliyeruhusu pesa za escrow account zitolewe kinyume cha uanzishwaji wake? naamini kabisa wa TZ hawatakubali kulipa deni mara mbili coz wenyewe wameshapigika sana na hali ya uchumi, waliolipana hizo pesa wanauwezo wa kuzirudisha? Mungu ibariki TZ bariki na watu wakeKwani Tane
Tanesco isipolipa hakuna shida. IPTL hawana uwezo wa kucheza na dola. Watafanya nini? Hakuna kitu. Dawa ni kutolipa tuone watakachofanya hao IPTL.
HalimaHongera IPTL acha kodi yangu ilipe deni la tanesco.
Nangoja pia kulipa deni la migodi mikubwa ambayo wananchi tumeambiwa tuchukue michanga inayopelekwa nje ya nchi.
Wewe hauna idea ya biashara na mikataba ya kimataifa. Kaa kimya ufiche aibu yako.Kwani Tane
Tanesco isipolipa hakuna shida. IPTL hawana uwezo wa kucheza na dola. Watafanya nini? Hakuna kitu. Dawa ni kutolipa tuone watakachofanya hao IPTL.
Nchi itatikisika .
That is the legal process kama unadaiwa, una debt agreements, uwezi lipa mahakama itatafuta liquidator aje kufanya assets stripping kufidia deni; na hili liko wazi SCB-HK wanaidai IPTL hilo alina ubishi lakini awana ubia nao wala uhalali wa kisheria wa kuwa wamiliki wa IPTL hiyo ndio hoja ya Rugemalira.On December 16, 2008, the Tanzanian High Court appointed a Provisional Liquidator (the “PL”), an appointment to which Mechmar objected. A few days later, SCB HK informed
the PL that it held security over IPTL’s assets under the Security Deed.75
What request did SCB-HK made? and why it seems other involved parties had no acknowledge of it, if anything it shows the aggressiveness of SCB to hijack IPTL.71. On January 27, 2009, upon SCB HK’s request made a few days earlier, the High Court of Tanzania appointed ex parte an administrator over IPTL (the “Administrator”). On the ground that notice should have been issued to all of the interested parties, the appointment of the Administrator was set aside by the Tanzanian Court of Appeal on April 9, 2009.
If you 're filing for an administrator it means you're looking for assets stripping in order to be compensated for your loans. Not sure what you want me to comment on this.76 SCB HK withdrew its first petition and filed a second petition to appoint an Administrator on September 17, 2009 (“SCB HK’s Second Administration Petition”).
Those are just claims which parties argue the terms implied; to comment on that requires seeing the actual contract between IPTL and the Malaysian bank what sort of arrangement were made on the loan, even with that was the other partner aware of those proceeding (bearing in mind IPTL was registered as a partnership company which also has its own legal ownership and each partners right). In short partly terms of contract aspects are not enough to make any valid points.TANESCO has not made the distinction between a mortgage and a charge a primary aspect of its submissions. In fact the distinction is addressed in a single footnote in TANESCO’s Rejoinder:
SCB HK argues that the security assignment is a “mortgage” and not a “charge.” See SCB HK Reply Memorial 195. TANESCO does not believe the Tribunal will find placing these labels on the security assignment is particularly useful in resolving the issue of whether the security needed to be registered. One difficulty is that while the charging language in Section 3.2 appears to create an assignment where “ownership of the property used as security is transferred to the lender,” which SCB HK classifies as a “mortgage,” the lenders in the Facility Agreement at Section 19(C) contract with IPTL that unless it is in default, the Facility Agent will not allow the Security Agent to exercise the rights, including the step-in rights, granted to the Security Agent in the Security Deed, such that SCB HK’s supposed “mortgage” in practice only “gives the lender recourse to the property used as security in the event that the debt is not repaid,”
which SCB HK says is the essential definition of a “charge.” The substance of the business arrangement, and in this regard, even SCB HK acknowledges “clause 3.2.1 of
the Security Deed constitutes a ‘charge’ for the purposes of section 79 of the
Tanzanian Companies Ordinance.” Reply Memorial at ¶ 221.137
143. TANESCO thus concludes that the nature of the security interest is irrelevant: the critical
point in its view is that it had to be registered and it was not and therefore it is void. In the
Tribunal’s view, this conclusion conflates several issues. The nature of the security
interest may have an impact on the scope of rights that SCB HK has in relation to the PPA.
Source: Request Rejected
That is the legal process kama unadaiwa, una debt agreements, uwezi lipa mahakama itatafuta liquidator aje kufanya assets stripping kufidia deni; na hili liko wazi SCB-HK wanaidai IPTL hilo alina ubishi lakini awana ubia nao wala uhalali wa kisheria wa kuwa wamiliki wa IPTL hiyo ndio hoja ya Rugemalira.
What request did SCB-HK made? and why it seems other involved parties had no acknowledge of it, if anything it shows the aggressiveness of SCB to hijack IPTL.
If you 're filing for an administrator it means you're looking for assets stripping in order to be compensated for your loans. Not sure what you want me to comment on this.
Those are just claims which parties the terms implied; to comment on that requires seeing the actual contract between IPTL and the Malaysian bank what sort of arrangement were made on the loan, even with that was the other partner aware of those proceeding. In short partly terms of contract aspects are not enough to make any valid points.
Labda kinachotakiwa sasa mkataba wote wa IPTL na TANESCO wa awali uwekwe publicly, makubaliano ya IPTL na hao Malaysian bank yawekwe wazi na ushahidi wa signature ya wabia wa IPTL kutokana na madai SCB-HK. Hizo ndio evidence zenye tija kwetu court events are not of interest na ndio zinachanganya watanzania.
Nchi itatikisika .
Well kila branch ya sheria ina kanuni zake; kesi zinapoenda kwenye mahakama za kimataifa ni uniformity ambazo zinaondoa aspects of local laws and may be preceding.Mkuu,
Hii ndiyo itatakiwa JF kutoa mawazo yako kifungu kwa kifungu (naamini kuna wenye mawazo tofauti) juu ya sakata hili linalovutia wasomaji wa Jamiiforums na pia linaloumiza ''wanasheria'' wetu wanapokumbana na ''majaji pamoja na wanasheria-nguli'' wanaotafsiri sheria kama inavyokubalika kimataifa.
Well kila branch ya sheria ina kanuni zake; kesi zinapoenda kwenye mahakama za kimataifa ni uniformity ambazo zinaondoa aspects of local laws and may be preceding.
Na hapa SCB-HK wanakimbia sheria zinazotambua umiliki wa IPTL kisheria ndani ya Tanzania na huko wanakoenda wanafungua kesi wao kama owners of IPTL (kupitia deni lao) bila ya hizo mahakama kutaka kujua legal process za umiliki wao umekamilika ndani ya Tanzania. Hakuna changamoto wa kipanga the issue is straight forward.
Mbona liko wazi na walishalifikiria wakati mahakama ilipoamua kumtambua PAP kama legal owner of IPTL swala ambalo TANESCO awawezi pinga na wala awana sababu; wao walichotaka mahakama itambue akija mtu mwingine kudai na yeye ni mmiliki wa IPTL wamalizane huko huko na PAP akakubali hili. Kwa hivyo zoezi lote linarudi mahakamani likija Tanzania ambapo SCB-HK inabidi wathibithishe kama wao ndio wamiliki wa IPTL kisheria na ikibainika hivyo PAP analipa deni lolote.Mkuu,
Kwa majibu yako murua, je katika hukumu/hitimisho la hii tribunal na kwa faida ya wana JamiiForums ambao siyo wataalamu ktk fani hii ya sheria (Tanzania & Kimataifa), kuna uwezekano wa serikali ya Tanzania/Tanesco kukwepa kulipa madai haya ya SCB-HK ?