bidco oil and soap ltd vs saving and finance comm bank another 2010 tzhccomd 15 28 june 2010

bidco oil and soap ltd vs saving and finance comm bank another 2010 tzhccomd 15 28 june 2010

The court held that Rule 4 of Order VIIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, though couched in mandatory terms, is directory and does not impose a strict time limit for applications to amend or depart from a scheduling order. The court has discretion to extend time in the interest of justice, especially where neither party is solely to blame for delay. The inherent powers of the court and the constitutional imperative to dispense justice without undue technicalities justify granting the extension and amendment sought.

Citation
bidco oil and soap ltd vs saving and finance comm bank another 2010 tzhccomd 15 28 june 2010
Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: BIDCO Oil and Soap Limited; Defendant/respondent: Savings and Finance Commercial Bank
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
28 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Commercial Case / Ruling on Application to Amend Scheduling Order and Extend Time
Outcome
Application allowed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Scheduling Orders, Limitation of Actions, Inherent Powers of the Court
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Extension of Time Scheduling Orders Limitation of Actions Inherent Powers of the Court

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BIDCO Oil and Soap Limited

Plaintiff/applicant

Savings and Finance Commercial Bank

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Case / Ruling on Application to Amend Scheduling Order and Extend Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should depart from or amend its scheduling order and extend time for hearing and determination of the main suit
  2. 2 Whether the application for extension of time is time-barred under the Law of Limitation Act

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Rule 4 of Order VIIIA of the Civil Procedure Code, though couched in mandatory terms, is directory and does not impose a strict time limit for applications to amend or depart from a scheduling order. The court has discretion to extend time in the interest of justice, especially where neither party is solely to blame for delay. The inherent powers of the court and the constitutional imperative to dispense justice without undue technicalities justify granting the extension and amendment sought.

Court Disposition

Application allowed

Orders

  • The scheduling order made on 14th May, 2007 is departed from.
  • Time is extended for a period of twelve months from 14th May, 2008 and for a further period of eighteen months from 14th May, 2009 for conclusion of the matter before December 2010.