20081010 TZHC Arusha

20081010 TZHC Arusha

The court lacks jurisdiction to grant arrest and security before judgment in suits for recovery or possession of immovable property under Section 14 of the Civil Procedure Code. Additionally, the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence that the 1st respondent is about to abscond or dispose of property within the meaning of Order 36 Rule 1.

Citation
20081010 TZHC Arusha
Parties
Applicant: Robert Gabriel Mmari; 1st Respondent: Mike Brydon; 2nd Respondent: Tropical Africa Trails Ltd.; 3rd Respondent: Kilimanjaro International Institute for Telecommunication Electronics and Computers Ltd.
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
10 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Arrest and Security Before Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Arrest Before Judgment, Jurisdiction, Security for Appearance, Immovable Property, Hearsay Evidence
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Arrest Before Judgment Jurisdiction Security for Appearance Immovable Property Hearsay Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Gabriel Mmari

Applicant

Mike Brydon

1st Respondent

Tropical Africa Trails Ltd.

2nd Respondent

Kilimanjaro International Institute for Telecommunication Electronics and Computers Ltd.

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Arrest and Security Before Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to order arrest and security before judgment in a suit concerning immovable property
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established grounds for arrest and security against the 1st respondent

Ratio Decidendi

The court lacks jurisdiction to grant arrest and security before judgment in suits for recovery or possession of immovable property under Section 14 of the Civil Procedure Code. Additionally, the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence that the 1st respondent is about to abscond or dispose of property within the meaning of Order 36 Rule 1.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Applicant to pay costs