20071120 TZHC Musoma

~ - . ~. . _ l L I B ~ A R. Y'·1 -~ o n u_ "' . -._ - · ·__ . . _"\"'" __ ,. ! _HJGH ccc., r or TANZAtllAl eJ ''-- •'-"--'"l..-lt-- ~ -.. ; I ~ IN THE HIGH COURT Of THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA "'Ill ~ .- - -

MWANZA c 11\ e- ~ • .f:J;, IN THE DISTRICT REGISTRY •. ,:.:-

AT MWANZA HC. MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 58 & 59 OF 2005 {Arising from Misc Civil Appl. No. 56/2004 and Kenya Civil Case No. 577/2000} 1.ILULA COMPANY LIMITED}· 2.ROCK BEACH HOTEL LTD ...... i . . . . . . . . i• ■ ••·····APPLICANTS Versus NATIONAL OIL CORPORATION OF KENYA ......... RESPONDENT

RULING L. B. MCHOME. J I have decided to consolidate Miscel 1aneous Civil Applications 1 i No. 58 and 59 of 2005. They arise from Miscellaneous Civil .I Application No. 56 of 2004. No. 56 of 2004 ras an application for the Registration of the Judgment/ Order of i~he High Court of Kenya I th issued on the 9 day of December 2: , 3 between National Oil Corporation of Kenya, the Plaintiff and Majige Joseph Company Limited, Defendant/ Respondent. The a, lication · was granted ex parte. !twas an application by the applicah , National Oil Corporation of Kenya to execute, in Tanzania, a J, cree issued against the- Respondent Majige Joseph Company Lim ed, by the High Court of Kenya, Nairobi. No sooner had the attachment pr · ess started being issued than were these two objection applica i ns filed. These are the applications No. 58 of 2005 between ck Beach Hotel Limited, Applicant/ Objector and National Oil I rporation of Kenya Ltd, Respondent; And Application No. 59 of 2 05 which is between Ilula II - I ' f' • . Company Limited, Applicant/ Objector and National Oil Corporation of Kenya, Respondent. In Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 59 of 2005, the Applicant, Ilula Company Limited is objecting to the attachment of its property, namely farms Nos. 14, 18, and 19 situated in Ilula, Kwimba District. The applicant contends that he is not indebted to the Respondent, the said National Oil Corporation of Kenya in the sum decreed against the judgment debtor, Majige Joseph Company Ltd or at all. That the applicant has copies of the title deeds to the said farms, which he annexed to his affidavit. Rock Beach Hotel Limited's application. is No.

58. It is an objection to the attachment of Plot No. 3 Blo~k X and Plot No. 50, i I Block X Capri point, Mwanza City. The affidavit/of Michael Lushinje is · attached in support of the objection. The .~bjection is that the attached houses belong to the applicant, Roc~/Beach Hotels Limited, and not the judgment debtor, Majige Joseph qomp~ny Limited. That the applicant is not indebted to the said [ 1 ational Oil of Kenya Corporation in the sum decreed against t1 said Majige Joseph Company Limited or at all and that the war~ nt of attachment was not properly levied, as the applicant's pro erty is not liable to attachment. In reply to the applications by R~ck Beach Hotel Limited · and Ilula Company Ltd the respondent filed a counter - affidavit of one Lois Allela to the effect that the prohibi ry order issued by this court in respect of the properties known as P ts No. l 4, 18, 19 to be found at Nyangwale Village at Misungwi an the houses on Plot No. 50 Block X and Plot No. 3 Block X to be ound at Capri Point in . 2 t. .. · · Mwanza City was proper and enforceable against the proprietary l· interests held in the said properties. That the deponent of the· counter affidavit, has conducted a search at the Business Registry and Licence Agency "BRELA" located in Dar es salaam and established that:- (a) . Rock Beach Hotel ltd was incorporated with three subscribers: Joseph Majige, Jane

Majige and Tungu Majige of similar address holding 50, 25 and 25 shares respectively. (b) The said Michael Joseph who stands in the position of majority shareholder of Rock Beach. Hotel Ltd is the same person known as Joseph Majige, shareholder in the company known as Majige Joseph Company Ltd. , I P./'o. Box 10773 Mwanza, I (c) Rock Beach Hotel Ltd's address in the same used by Majige Joseph Lt,d 1and Joseph Majige. I I , ; I That as far back as 1998 Michael Lushinie /signed in his capacity as I an authorizing officer of and/ or on beHal of Majige Joseph Ltd, orders thereby demonstrating the clds relationship and/ or association in control in respect of the ~o panies known as Rock Beach Hotel Ltd and Majige Joseph Ltd. Finally that _basing on the facts revealed in respect of Rock Beach Hotel Ltd and its common shareholding 1t MaJ1ge Joseph Company LTD and further the fact of similar cont~ I pecial circumstances exist indicating that the objector company is mere fa~ade meant to frustrate the Respondent's efforts at ex cuting the decree in its favour. 3 I A similar counter -affidavit was filed in respect of Misc. Application No. 59 of 2005, by the same deponent to the effect that:- (a) On search conducted by the deponent at the Business Registry and License Agency "BRELA" Located in .Dar es salaam Ilula Company Ltd was incorporated with two subscribers: Michael Joseph of P.

0. Box 10773 Mwanza and M. Mukembo of Similar address holding 70 and 30 shares respectively. (b) The said Mjchael Joseph who stands in the position of majority shareholder of Ilula Company Ltd is the same person known as Joseph Majige shar,eholder in the company known as Majige Joseph Company Ltd. I (c) That Ilula Company's address is P. ~- Box 10773 Mwanza, 'I the very same address used by ,Majige Joseph Ltd and Joseph Majige. I ' That there is close relationship and/ or / ssociation in control in respect of the companies known as Ilula mpany Ltd and Majige Joseph Ltd. That the objector company is a mere f ade meant· to frustrate the Respondent's efforts at executing the de ree in its favour. In his written submission the learned lunsel for the applicant Mr. Nasimire submits that the parties in Civil ~uit No. 577 of 2000 are the National Oil Corporation of Kenya Li ted and Majige Joseph Company Limited. The property sought to attached in Misc. Civil 4 Application No. 58 of 2005 belongs to and is actually registered in the name of Rock Beach Hotel Limited. Likewise in Application No. 59 of 2005 he submits that farms Nos. 14, 18 and 19 at Ilula Kwimba belong to Ilula Company Limited. He contends that as neither ·Rock Beach Hotel Limited nor Ilula Company Limited is a party to the suit so no property of either company may be attached in satisfaction of the said decree since also

neither company is a judgment debtor in the said suit. Mr. Nasimire continues to submit that it is uncalled for and misguided for the Respondent to contend that Rock Beach Hotel Limited and Ilula Company Limited are one and the same thing as Majige Joseph Company Limited simply because Joseph Majige is a , I majority shareholder in all these three comp~nies. He contends that it is not true that the objector company is a) mere facade meant to frustrate the efforts at executing the decrek. He submits that the three companies were floated long before thi case giving rise to the present objection proceedings was filed. ~e ondly he argues that a company is a separate legal entity from th~ embers who constitute I 1 it. So the debts of one of its directors a e not the liability of the company. He cited the case of Bri ht ommunications Ltd V. N a NPF Com · Limited evision No. 9 of 1995 Mwanza Registry unreported) , In reply the Learned Counsel for the r spondent, Mr. Malango submits that Majige Joseph Limited and Ilul Company Limited are in fact the same and are under the control oft e same people and the property attached are being held by the pplicant in trust of the· 5 judgment debtor. So he prays that the objection shoulcl be disallowed under Order XXI Rule 57 (1) and section 68 (e) of the Civil Procedure Code 1966. He submits further that this is a clear case for the court to

lift ; ' · the corporate veil as 'the devise of incorporation has been used for improper purposes. Mr. Malango further contends that this application has been filed for the sole purpose of delaying the respondent from enjoying the fruits of the decree, as the applicant was aware of the debt due to the Respondent since 2003. On similar Jines the Learned Counsel for the Respondent argued Application No. 59 of 2005. In a rejoinder to the Respondent's sub~ission . . II Learned Counsel . I for the applicant submits that these three c6mpanies are different if not distinct legal en~ities. He continue~· su8mitting that there is no . scintilla of evidence that the applicant! is aiding the properti~s in trust . for the judgment. debtor. . On the lifting of the veil. of incorpora ion there is no evidence, he argues, that the devise of incorporatio is used for som·e improper purpose e.g. to. avoid some legal obli at on, such as transferring property to a certain company for th t urpose. Learned counsel · submits that the judgment debtor wa i corporated on 10/11/95 while the applicant company was inco porated on 30/07/99, even .before this suit was instituted. 6 On delay the learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no delay as these objection proceedings were filed on 1/7/2005 while the applicant was served with a notice to settle the decretal sum only on 24/6/2005, within

only one week! It is undisputed that some of the directors and shareholders of the judgment debtor are also directors and shareholders of the objectors or applicants in these two applications. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that each company is a separate legal entity ·and so the debts of one of its directors are not the liability of the company. I agree with him. Order XXI Rule 58 of the Civil Procedur~ Code 1966 provides: - "The claimant or objector must adduce evidence to show that at the time of the attachJent he had some interest in or was possessed of the p!i iperty attached. " From the affidavits of the applicants and the annexed title deeds I the claimants or objectors have proved th~t they are the owners of the property attached. That is Plot No. 5~ lock X Capri Point and Plot No. 3 Block X Capri Point Mwanza ti, are registered in the name of the applicant Rock Beach Hotel Li ited. The Certificate of applicant, Ilula Farm is the owner of th hree farms attached at Kwimba. The Certificates of Occupancy a ched are also proof of this.· There is no evidence that the attach d property belongs to the judgment debtor. 7 . .., Nor is there evidence that the applicants are in possession of the attached property in trust for the judgment debtor, Majige Joseph Company Limited. The respondents argue that this is a case for "lifting the veil' of corporateness as the

device of incorporation has been used for some improper purpose. But I agree with the applicant's argument that the attached property ha$ never belonged to the judgment debtor and· been transferred to the applicants with a view to defeat the respondent's decree. It is undisputed that both the judgment debtor and applicant companies were incorporated even before the main suit No. 577 /2000 was filed in the High Courtof Kenya. I On the delay I agree with the applican~ that under the proviso I to Order XXI Rule 57 1 of the Civil Procedute Code 1966 it is about the filing of the claim or objection. : here the objection is unnecessarily delayed the court shall no~ investigate it. These objection proceedings were not delayed at all, as the applicant has stated in his rejoinder to the reply by the respondents. They were ' I filed within a week of service of the notice t settle the decretal sum. One thing which puzzles me is why t e decree holder did not apply to attach any property of the judgm t debtor himself. In fact the records shows there were two defend ts; the second one being "Trust Bank Tanzania". No warrant of atta ment was issued against the second defendant, the Trust Bank of T zania, either. Be that as it may but the applicants/ ob· ctors have proved before this court that they are the exclusive owners of the attached 8 property; that they are not holding it in trust for

the judgment , debtor; that the judgment debtor is not the owner_ of the attached property and that the applicants are not parties to the Kenya High Court Civil Case No. 577 of 2000. It has not been proved that the debts of the judgment debtor Majige Joseph Company Limited are the debts or liability of the applicants, Rock Beach Hotel Limited and/ or Ilula Company Limited. For these reasons I allow these applications and I order that the attachments on the properties to, wit, Farms Nos. 14, 18 and 19 at Ilula Kwimba and Plot No. 3 Block "X" and Plot No. 50 Block "X" Capri Point, Mwanza City be raised immediately and handed over to the applicants/ objectors, Ilula Company LiTited and Rock Beach Hotel Limited, respectively. The respondent will bear the costs of th se applications. ' tJ

ATMUSOMA $t~ L.B. MCHOME 20/11/2007 JUDGE 9 ·property; that they are not holding it in trust for the judgment debtor; that the judgment debtor is not the owner. of the attached ~ r property and that the· applicants are not parties to the Kenya High Court Civil Case No. 577 of 2000. It has not been proved that the debts of the judgment debtor Majige Joseph Company Limited are the debts or liability of the applicants, Rock Beach Hotel Limited and/ or Ilula Company Limited. For these reasons I allow these applications and I order that the attachments on the properties to, wit, Farms Nos. 14, 18 and 19 at Ilula Kwimba and Plot No. 3 Block "X" and Plot No. 50 Block "X" Capri Point, Mwanza City be raised immediat~ly and handed over to the applicants/ objectors, Ilula Company Lirhited and Rock Beach Hotel Limited, respectively. 'I The respondent will bear the costs of th. se applications. ' ' ·: -$~~ ATMUSOMA L.B. MCHOME 20/11/2007 JUDGE 9 -- f ' ,,, I 'II. ... Date: 21/12/2007 Coram: F. W. Mgaya,- DR For Applicant: Present For Respondent: Represented by Chamani for Malango B/C: P. Alphonce - RMA COURT: The judgment of the Court is delivered to the parties in chambers in my presence this 21/12/2007 in the presence of the applicant and the respondent. 21/12/2007 :I ! . ! i i ' ' , . ,,d .,•i