Fellow citizens, if you thought the Uganda case was bad, wait until you hear what happened in Dar es Salaam, Tanzanian capital.

This is the case that “spooked” the entire region and proved that these banks believe they are more powerful than our national constitutions.

Victim: Blueline Enterprises (John Lamba)

In 1990, a Tanzanian transport businessman named John Lamba, owner of Blueline Enterprises, took a loan from the East African Development Bank (EADB). 

Amount: A humble $2.3 million. 

Goal: To buy trucks and trailers to haul fuel across East Africa (Tanzania, Malawi and Democratic Republic of the Congo).  

Trap: Receivership and the London move.

When Lamba hit a rough patch, the bank didn’t negotiate. Like a colonial liquidator, they immediately placed his business under receivership in 1997 to seize his trucks. 

Battleground: Just like in Kenya (Raphael Tuju versus EADB case) and Uganda, the fight was dragged into arbitration. For years, they fought over who owed what. 

“Interest” explosion: From $2 million to $137 million!

This is where the “financial colonialism” gets scary. Because of the long delay and the bank’s aggressive tactics, the arbitrator eventually ruled in favour of the businessman.

Award: The bank was ordered to pay the businessman $61 million for the losses they caused him. 

Colonial balloon: With interest accrued for over 15 years of fighting, that amount grew to a staggering $137 million by 2011! 

‘Serenity’ of the High Court (2011)

A brave High Court Judge in Tanzania did what we are asking our judges at the Milimani Commercial Court, in Nairobi, to do. He looked at the law and said the bank is not above the people. That is a declaration of sovereignty.

Ruling: The High Court cleared the way for the EADB’s properties in Dar es Salaam to be auctioned and their bank accounts at Standard Chartered to be frozen to pay the businessman. 

Impact: For the first time, a local court treated the EADB like any other “culprit.” The people saw that sovereignty meant the bank must obey the High Court.

Three steps back: Changing the Law (2012)

This is the part that will make your blood boil. The EADB and other regional banks panicked. They didn’t just appeal; they pressured the government of Tanzania to change the law! 

Protective armour: In the 2012/2013 budget, Tanzania’s finance minister proposed an amendment to the EADB Act (Cap 231) specifically to give the bank absolute immunity.

Result: Tanzania Court of Appeal then used this “immunity” to quash the $137 million award. They ruled that the bank’s money and houses were “untouchable” by legal proceedings. The businessman was left with a massive legal bill and no compensation.

“Copy-paste” summary for your followers:

Small bait: It starts with a few million dollars (like the $2.3M in Tanzania or the $10 million in Uganda and Kenya). 

Property grab: They go after the most valuable assets (trucks in Tanzania, hotels in Uganda, 27 acres in Karen, Kenya).

Judicial reversal: Every time a High Court Judge stands up for a citizen (Justice Ssekaana in Uganda the High Court in Tanzania), a higher power moves in to “modulate” the law and grant the bank immunity.

Mwalimu’s verdict

They treat our countries like financial colonies. They want to lend us money under London rules, but when they lose, they hide behind diplomatic immunity to avoid paying the citizens they have ruined.

Is this the judicial privacy we are seeing in Milimani Commercial Court today? Is our Judiciary being “spooked” by the same ghost that tormented Tanzania in 2012?

• A Tell Media report / By Faith Mirunde Hakala – Ms Hakala is a public legal educator and a long-serving paralegal in Kenyan judiciary.