20040924 TZHC Dar es Salaam 1
- Citation
- 20040924 TZHC Dar es Salaam 1
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 24 September 2004
- Posture
- Commercial Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Injunction/attachment Before Judgment
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 24 September 2004
- Posture
- Commercial Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Injunction/attachment Before Judgment
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The application was incompetent due to citation of the wrong provision of law (Order 37 instead of Order 36 CPC), and even if the correct provision had been cited, the prerequisites for attachment before judgment were not met as there was no evidence of intent to obstruct or delay execution by removal or disposal of property. The ship's departure was in the normal course of business and did not amount to such intent.
Court disposition
Application struck out with costs.
Orders
- Interim injunctive order against MV Denler Premier issued on 14/9/2004 is hereby raised (vacated).
02
Material facts
Parties
Said Saum Bakhresa & Co. Limited
Plaintiff/applicant Counsel: Mr. KihweloMaster of MV Denler Premier, Dar es Salaam Port
Defendant/respondent Counsel: Mr. ChipeyaDenler Trade Limited, London
Defendant/respondent Counsel: Mr. ChipeyaAmounts and remedies
- Claimed Damages for Short Landed Cargo and Loss of Profit: USD 72,232,855
03
Procedural history
Posture
Commercial Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Injunction/attachment Before Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the application for injunction/attachment before judgment was properly brought under the correct provision of law
- 02
Whether the prerequisites for attachment before judgment or injunction were satisfied
- 03
Whether the applicant established a risk of removal or disposal of property to obstruct execution
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Applicant argued that they are entitled to an interim order restraining the respondents from sailing the vessel MV Denler Premier pending determination of the main suit, on grounds of risk to the subject matter (cargo) and potential frustration of execution. They relied on affidavits alleging loss and damage to cargo, failure to provide security, and cited authorities on injunctions.
- Respondent
- Respondents argued the application was brought under the wrong provision (Order 37 instead of Order 36 CPC), that the prerequisites for attachment/injunction were not met, that there was no evidence of intent to obstruct or delay execution, and that the ship's departure was in the ordinary course of business. They also challenged the applicant's title to the cargo and the admissibility of certain affidavit paragraphs.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Court of Appeal of Tanzania, Mbeya-Rukwa Autoparts & Transport Ltd v Jestina George Mwakyoma, Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2000; Citibank Tanzania Ltd and Tanzania Telecommunications Co. Ltd and others, Civil Application No. 64 of 2003.
Proper citation of enabling provision is mandatory for competence of an application; wrong citation renders the application incompetent.
- 02
Order 36 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
Order 36 CPC applies to attachment before judgment where there is intent to obstruct or delay execution by disposal or removal of property.
- 03
Order 37 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
Order 37 CPC applies to injunctions in specific circumstances, not applicable where the subject matter is not in danger of being wasted, damaged, or alienated.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The application was incompetent due to citation of the wrong provision of law (Order 37 instead of Order 36 CPC), and even if the correct provision had been cited, the prerequisites for attachment before judgment were not met as there was no evidence of intent to obstruct or delay execution by removal or disposal of property. The ship's departure was in the normal course of business and did not amount to such intent.
Obiter and limits
- Wrong citation of law is now fatal to applications in Tanzanian practice.
- Even if the correct provision had been cited, the facts did not support the grant of attachment before judgment.
Court disposition
Application struck out with costs.
- Interim injunctive order against MV Denler Premier issued on 14/9/2004 is hereby raised (vacated).
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 24 September 2004
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
TZHC
Judgment· 24 September 2004
' ' ps:_ 1op_ _p. 1 & CD.LTD.-l'IZIZim NILL FF« l:0- : 255 022 2861140 IN Tfff HIGH CO(JJff 01,· TA!'JZANIA (COMMERCJI\I_. J>iVISJ<>N) ,AT OAR ES SALAAM . . . . . _-· .. · . COMM£RCIAL ~ASF. NO. '46 OF 2004
SAID SAUM BAKHRESA ·& CO.LTMITED .... c:·;.s~·•.•"~•~-•••"O:••••~•;., ..••. '.,"''').~ •••••. pl,AlN"flf,'.FS/AJ>PLIC~TS. . -VERSUS•· · 1. MASTER.OF MV l>~NLER
DAR ES SALAAM PORT l'REM!ER,} .. . \ .-.! ' .
2. DENLER, ;I"RAD.E LIMITED, LONDON . _ .... :..,•.... .DEFE~ANTS/RESPOr,IDENTS C/0 MR DENLER PRtMlEJl; · i·'· · . · DA1its'.s~· ·. .: ·· _· · · · .. ··· -J?:-' :.<ri:h L·•irt:,f . . . , ' .: . -~: ~ ·. . ·. :JJit: 1Jlai0VWJ\fpljca9t'~ ¢nart?~,e(:~~CJ1?101}5 filed on .14/9/~004 · · .fim~Jt~n~vsiy_yri~h_t~CJTialfl 'suit, prny~~{~(o.rd~rs:/ • • ••: • : •; • •'. • . < .. • : :..· • • .• •• •, : •I.:: • •. '•:.~- • ::. [~•,;.;, ,:__ '•.: • _• • :- ·• ;_ •. • '\_it:· :·---:.(.j~i(\· .://,:__ . . ;, ·/4 ~·j,art; :' . . ! 1Jit lfprzb~rab/e _b.nirt :be p'.leltst:d to ,~·:me aii. interi!Jt. order ·. resiraifiilJg t}z_e Resp91Jdeiztsd?~fendant "tVhether actffzg byiheir Di;ectors, ·Qjficeri. S~ryqn).f _pr.·.Agei_zts; .or. any of- them ·:qr ·. 'oihefwis~~ frqm :,~king a~Y-}T)le~ures (0 sail ih; Vessel lvffl ·tJenler Pre,11:ier pending)hi hearing of the App!icatio,iz for ..injun<;lion in:terpart(es. · . -. . . . . •' .. -(b) The H°pnourable Court be. pleaded to dispense with the requiremetzf ofnotfce. Inter - parties .· (a) The RespondentJ;-.IDefendants .whether acting by their Directors, Officer.~·. . . Serva/Us or .ageni.\:;: or any of them or otherwise, be . ~ , \ /4 04 05: !Op p.2 . - FAX 1-::!_O. : 2SS 022 2861140 Sep. 24 2004 03:22PM P2t'10_ ' I )' .. I, / l restrained from taking any li1ell..tures lo saif Lhe vessel MV. Denle.r Premiel' pending tht: determination i1fthe main
,~uit, (b) . Cost.s of this Jlipp!u:alibn be provicled for f l i. (c) Any farther reliefi· the C014rt may deem just and equitable to, £. grant." -~i, . l.--· - ~ :nie .application 1S svp:port#<J :fu; ·;in affidavit of ~ctty .Ven.kata · t, : -l!. ·.. ...'>:stecnivasulu .· ; -. . andprosecuted . . by Mr.. ':kihwefo, ', : . . It . . : Advocate. .. is.. resisted . ' by .. ~ .:t_ . . · . R~pond.erits/Defertd.¢ts r,cpr.s;cntc:d l;Jy M.r., Chipe~ Advqpate. The said ·::: . : ~~is.~ce is ri~ 111~ ~U;JX)~ ;i ~1r?:n :Su~~m·s:·G()tlll~f ·~ ~gav1t, . ..' ·-··. so~ght was i~~q; an~. although ;hearing' i]lt~r::J>aJ1e~ W~;a~o~odat~d just the Jo]lqwing. day,-~/~p:ric~dutal r¢q~iiemcnts o( filing a Cotmtet ~ _': ~ffidayit.. and. -r~p);, a~~: :a:1~;(,~,:fuqher .fi~i~g-; ~f- ~- :Chamb.~r -Sµmmo_~s ,Pi _.. -·. ---·_·- . _ · ___ . ---,·· ~::::··:r·:'-/:·. _ 1:_· --·~ ... -...:.. ~- ,-::--;-·?{:\.-'·'.<:··-.\?···<·:~:-· · · ·_ · .\ ·-: -~-· ·. •. _· i: r!<1;,ritiffs/Ar,pij9,ants ..to.•• b:.ir Chipet:a ·. and .~~o~iat~ Jrofu reprcs6nti.tig · .·. : ·'Ite~ondenJs, which applic;ldon· n,iru911lyq:i(~. :~~:h~d first and di~pos~d : of, . : . the ~amy . ·. could . n9tpr9c;_q¢ . ·- -~. ::- .....· . - . .. c~li~r .. .' than today (22/9/2004). ·.... . . . . . . .. . ,. . . .. , . . (· The .application.wasfilcd u_hdexs. 68:(~) Md 0. ·XXXVH, Rufo l and 2 of the Civil Proce<:!ure CC>de~ · The
P!aintiff7Applicant, i~ the main suit, claims \ "against the Defendants joinJ!y and severally :,;.payment of US $72,232-.855 being compensation for short landed cargu ;,nd damCJ$ed consignment ofIndian Milling Wheat Grain ... " ·.•· -- )' 04 05:llp /5.B ~ CO.LTD.-MZJZ!r-FI HILL FAX HJ.- 255 022 2861140 Sep. 24 2004 03:23PM P:3/10 J For clarity; . . Jct. .. salicnt.par:agrnphs of Ramiseuy•s affidavit in suppo.rt . . . of the application paint the basis ofdtc ~pplicatioo: - "2. · t~e Applicant is the Own~r of 7,302.882 metric tones ofIndian milling F(heat Grain.purchased from Noble Grain Pte_L(mit(!d andShfpJ>edb~ . ~he lJefend~~~·per .. . ~ . MV De~lefPremier. -, ' .1. .The Pla inti.fr ri,~gdtiaiM mui J~tered into agreemini:;,.,;th· NobJe .t:~pttt/tltp:Jr~:f:! t1:i::tt:t:: 0 :wlikh, at~ai1!1~eqhef:~lih,joinily.mafkec/A_r;nr,xur:'J- :'~S]!J,.'. ·. ·. :to ;iwhifh th(! Applf~dht :pfay~ : '· .~ - for #ave tq refer lo them qs . .. . . . . . ·. . •. ••. M ••,''::•>:••, > 0 • . . . -· . .·_ .. . . . .. ;th~-§C!kt co_~ignrn:eb! pf{tzclian. Milling 1¥heat fJrdin :,Wa$. .· •.•· •tiJ~2f~~il bn\'.:~cJki.::]/4/J·pji;(gl1t.:?~l~:r1s·· 0}}1i''·;~J~;J;;:·t~ dskptJS;ing to;the Applica~t ufJ~~ lo~tjing ~f the C~rgo.· ..... , . .. ·'. '. . . . . ; . :, . 5. .· io111et{t}Je;ln }u!j,,· .2004't.he Suppiier engage.d:the.[)4;1~r[ra~~ I . ' Limfre¢,. London .· through -- . . · . ... .. . . .. . .
. 'iheir. agent -Llladhiir··. ·Htisog· . ' ... ·.. . . Fqrw~rder . . PVT Limit~cl . to ship the. purchased Cargo . . .fromtli'e. . .·. Port of Kandla India, to. the :pod of Dar eS Salaiim and to deliver the same to the Applicant ........................... ; .•. •·!···: .. 6. · That MIS Den fer TracJ.e • Limited, · London (2,"J Defendant} • .. \-. . : assigned and use4 a }vfarihi?. Vessel Oiristeried MV DENIER PREMTER under the mastership of one Capt. Zinurov Analolij 04 05:llp p.4 ~ FAX NO. 1 2SS 022 2861140 Sep. 24 2004 03:23PN P4/10 ( ,S' Defendant) Jo transport the Cargo ·10 the Pfrt of destination Dar es Salaam Porf. . 7. ·1/ was an. implied Jenn of the carriage.· implied._ in. order to give bU$in,ess . efficacy to the agreenien,t, . that the ·.~Pefendants shall . ··.·uu1mi:';J¥hetit . Qra_l1:, 'irl :degh~· s~f({'ofd.er,}cpn¢itfOn ·an in ··. ·. q!,Jcan.tity ~per:refevqnisltipp'ihg:<}ociune.{1/s: · . . . . . . .. -. _..-· .·. . .- ... _ t .•. •. fffe:~tii{Jffnitt. ~,J!~t&·~J;fJflf!}&:?t. 1 1 ·· whereupon' notice of the qanfri_ge:.was··dulytb(ought to. _the. ·: . ·. . . .. . .· . ·. .... : . ' ...· ·.. :- .' . ·. ;;'~-:. . · Cittentfoiz .am/ kn.owl edge. of the D¢Jenda:ntf- and Sea forth· .{;~nerii/Ageilciei Limitdd ~h;/i{;iihe~~gen! 'o/the Ve~sei's . . . . . . . .. :t:,.. . . un1erwnter atidlor Owners..• nid parties i1a~/ dulj, witnessed thet/amage and the loss,.;~ ...... ;.--~ ........ : ... , .. ,:r. ~-- ,..... .:~ :.... . . . . .. . . . .
12. The Defe~dants underiook to provufe securitj in form of cash deposit a.ndlor Bank Guarantee for the Joss ipined~ately iipon :discovery· . \. . . of the damage . but Iodate .. ·. no guarantee . ', . or security . : i.- . \ . . ·. . . . ·- t has been deposited as undertaken or at all. '• . FA>( t-0. : 255 022 2El61140_ · . Sc:_p. 24 2004 ·03:24PM PG/10 ,,.._tB & CO.LTD.rl"!ZlZIMA M£LL 13. As consequenC(:: of Jlic Defendanrs failure to ei1sure safe . · transportation. ~nr.f ddivei-y of the. cpnsign_ment the ApplicQnt has suffer~d da,hage andloss ofpr~fit i;µlcuiated at -the tune of .. . us$. 72.232.855: The: .tf.pplit:.ah/ . hiisJil,~l . ff. suit .. .for ' . ~be. clqim ofilze said mojiey -- ., .. _ . . . . . . _be!,ng_dqriu1g¢sJ9/,ihe wat'ir:dai7raged¢tifgh,.-/osi ofprofit arid _;h.fint~dircJrg~.. . . . . .. . -·_ Jeg{tim~te cia~ms qric«or fosiif!/; 9~>'::ff¢l,'ri[)'/O.rtl~,e daTJta,ged .·cdr,gp: h.oiv store_{in- Tanj:qnifzJ{~r-f?qur:{4u{hor,ity and ib/J~i. lqnil~d-~afgo_:whl;'Jt 4 asizeable:qiiiin(i~yJiJqicci(es,irrepart;z~le .· · . •. /o.5.rdh t1i/:~~f/o/ih~ Appli~all;- if-···th~:'J~esptJndenl~ qre /lOf . -· . . . ' . •... . . . · restrciineii'iininedit1ielybygranting the prayers i11the Chamher . Summons. ;~ .. . . . . . On the other h~nd, Allan's Counter - affidavit, in substan~e, urges that the bills or" ladi11g exhibited by Appticants ..;,tota[ to 5,302.882 MT ~ . . . . .
. .\ ·.. . 1 , although they have so far taken ddivery of 6,960 MT and that there is no , _ 04~,80•5•:•l-1.;,p_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ --================~-~----P-·_7_ · FAX HJ. : 255 022 2861140 Sep. 24 2004 03:Z>PM . P7/10. _z. S'.JI & CO. LTD. ---MZJZWA MILL '6 any· ~ore cargo they <lcserve to receive as there is JIU evidence _o{tillc to 7,30t882 M·r. -_ · Ad6pting Ramisetty's afTidavic, Mr. Kihwelo si1hmitted that grou_nds .upoh'\vhich an injunction can issue have· been estahlishaj in Jenils of Attilio :·~~.#e [196,91 ll~D 284; G~efla vs Casm.m. Jl,973) EA 3?8; CC S of 99, .'.t!~rua Tea -Packers Ltcl vs ComnH~si~n~; of ln°come T~x & ~oth~r ~·.. -,~·.. · :aricf(:¢73 of2002,Glaxo Gr~uptt4:vsA..ggregam. f,tcl. ·:- · f1{?···-,: - - < - . -·.· -. . . - . .. - - -•. : ; tMr. Kihwefo insisted that t~ey h~v~ I:1.9 Qbjectjoh j( ari .alternative !~~~_J;•:jf .found~ shorl of whlc~ th.~ R~ondents wiil not hon_our their . . . :! )_ )rn respotise, Mt:. Crupe~ ~d.qpti~E(AUan ;s-coufilcr ~:~ffid~vit charged .. :.t~iti~~ a~_~{ic~tion: s,h_o~M h~v~ QCe~~ fi_l:~i~ndf;_Q._,3~.-:m1~~-~ana ~ot 0:17 CP¢;1tlµt ev~n if the la~r ~ac; the prope{br.<:t~r, requisite cpn_ditions haye no( 't,ee_n ::established; that p.u-a.16 - .·J9 ~f ~is;~~y~s ~ffidavit •in_ reply sho~Id -be exputiged as they wer(! fl.Qt yerifi~d; that (he bil_ls and lllV()focs ;re:~1.~d te> do. not establis}ititleofmon~ tlianAsoo:MT or
grains; •and tb~t in any c:as~. the Court should din;ct ics mind 0. 36.and notO. 37 CPC.t() . . . . · •In rejoinder, Mr. Kihwelo conceded the inapplicabii~ty oJ 0. 37 CPC but urges thats. 68 suffices; agrees that indeed the <::hallenged para.16 ~ 19 of R,am.i~erty•s affidavit w~re not verified; th;.11 th~ title to the cargo is fully . estabHshed .·_ : .·.·· \, as 2760 MT W(:rC sold when the ship was alt'eady on. high seas . ' ·.. . . . _., hence clifferencc in dates, and that in any case, the question of title is for trial in ihc ~ain suit. 04 05:llp p.8 Se:p.· 24 2004 03:2SPM PS/10 ·'· .;,:S.fJ_& CO.LTP,-MZI2ln=l HILL FAX t-0. 255 022 2861140 ., I s[10uld outrightly state that indeed the application was brought under the wro~g provision of the_ lnw: .. . . . . . . 0. 37 CPC appl,es_in differebt situations clearly spdt .our under Rule : .. l ili~rcof and which pro_vides; · . . . . . . "Where in any suit it is proved bi,,aJfif!ilvif or Ot!1e,-,.,..,tre - _ ·ra) ::1td1::tt1i!Alj::i;~::;:;:;~.·r:!it.•·•··· · to . ,fofi:of ;az~;-by recirf,/of-;/S cdntinu~d-wse by anyparty i~e suJt, . . oi w~o'nglysold ·. .. in;ex{c!µiion of.·.,i"decr~e, . :"• -••:· . . . . or. :. (b) ikit. the , ;.· defendantihredien..~.- -~ . . .. . . .. .br;.j~te.nds; : . ··· .. ·. •.. . . to r:(fm,ove ' . ,. ordisp9seo/.. ·:-. : . . .- -· ... . . - . . . . : ,. :- .· -.· -~if f:'P{'f('!::
iw/J.!1i~;xt:e?{ti}~e!r1-~t,ft.H:~f#li(erf,. _ the court may by ordtrgrqntti te.>irporaij, irtjwiciio11 Jo res.train_sl}ch_ cict, or ;ake.su~h- pth~r dr/fer.fr>r t~e--ft~rpo~e of S/aytn;.·_and. prew;i1iing .the .wruting, dm,nagili~, -illiellation. sale. loss in Vf'llUC; . remova/~r disposi1,io11°of the property as the courithitiks.ftt. until the disposal ofthe suit or u1td furthe; ord~rs. ., Here. the ship is not the subject matt~ of the suit nor can sub - rule (b) be invoked as there is no threat to dcfhhJd credi.tors. The relevant provision of the law i~ 0, \36 CPC under a sub :-- title ·!. "Attachment before judgrncnt" wbich_in pnrl provides: - 04,05:12p p.9 ,7/4 ,. F~ t-0. 255. 022 2861140 ,;.s.-B _& co.LTD. --11Z1z1m MiLL ,. 0 "6. Where a.I i"11;y ,~tage of a sui1. !It<~ C.:ourt is saii~fied qffida~it by or otherwise, that the de)i.!nda,u, wiih intent to obstruc(o_l'. _¢¢lay the e.xec~tion t.>]any decree ihaimay be passed against him+. ' . (a) is about lo dispose oftJie wh<Jle or · °(h) ls abouilO re,riov; ihe.whole Qr a~y part of his pr~p~ro}:,. /rom . . . the .}occi! .. li,nit.1· . . .of ·- the jurisdiction . . . - ofthe . . coµn; . -.· : : -· · ihe iourt ,m,ry dii-ed (~ .defqm!ant. v,,tfhJ,z atii1?~ -,~ ,b<;_fu:ed iby';/;(;-: .· . ;t~::;;:tf17f.~7:;:i:;~:5!;I/ht]t!i;l;f:,;·• {h~;ebftif ,nq/::be sl!!fz~ient ~o satif./y -ihe Jiecrt~- o~ ·io ·appear q?14 ··. show :c.~use
w~y:he}h.~ld TJO,tfi.Jrr/i(lh. s.ec;µri;: _- - . -· . . . :.?.- ,.--~•_:lP!J?.{Cfi!JL[/f 'f.lwl~( u.~l~s-s,/r:~:~qi{rt.;:</t~<ftW.H?:4fr~~4;- ,.~qe~f/j.::: ._·. _··./hepr_¢p~rty.required to .be;d!ldchedand:th(esii,nate4 ·v~lu.e -··'. ,ifertJ)JJ 3.. The -.couri .may al~o I~ ·. i;w orqer. direci the co~ditio,a! •· awzchnzeiit of th(! wliole. or any portion of the property so' · specified. Where the defendant faifr to sl~ow cause why he should iipt. furnir;h security;_ . ·:or faffs . to furni.i;h the secu.r/ty . . . req;ired, within the time fixed by the court. the i::ourt may ~! • . . . . - . order that the properly specified, or suc.ltportion ther~cif 1 I , / 7omim'--------------==:::;:=======---------..a.-..---:- 0 4 0 5:: 1 2 p .,.:·s. t,& CO. LTD. :--MZlZlt"A Ml Li.. FF« t-0. 255 022 2861140 Se:p. 2 4 2004. 03:2~PM P10/10 p. 1 0 . ._-' _· . .. . . . . 11s_appt;nrS~·itJ.ficien1 . Lo saliify any decree which. _; . may he passed in i¥ suit. he aaached. (2) Where . the.defendant .;hows . .<ruch cau.se.{)r . -~-: ,. furnishers . _,. the . . requir~d-sdurity and the defeiiddnt shv"ws such cause ,ir . . . :. -~ . .. ..· . . ·.. . . . : .. · furnishes l/ifa requ.ired_ si!C!trity and theprope,;ty specified or any po/ton oj ,,-: has· been ai~ached. ihe. ~d~~I shall . . . . .. :-$~ . . . ·- ·: . . .. ·. . ·. -. :_ . ·: :.- .. . . order the. iittachmeni io ,be withdraw!f,.-or,make
.such : . . :-·ro . '· , . .· .:· ... ·.• . . .·. ,·. ofheror_d~,;[its;il ·..··.. •. ::j}: _·· lhinkf_jzl. :'< • ' .· ·. . • . , ;,: . :The above said, f rc;grei:to ~ylhat this applica:uon is (Jooajed to fail . ·..· from ·two ~pe~ts~ O.n.e js t~h\1ic_atan9 thi·s is as r~gard{ d1~ ~jt,iti9n of the .. · . '. . . . . ·:/·: . . . -· . . : ·.' .- -. .· : .. - ; .:--: _- - . _· . : :·· . :· .. - . . '. :w,r~ng I_avf,_:~!Jd two; fo(lack ofprerequi,site. c:onqifioqs. fQr t.he :appli~<.lbility _j ·. ~fp. 36 RulelcPG. · . . . . . ... . . . . . .·-The . o]·d stand tnaf wronicitatitih . ,• o{the faw·.· is.hot ··:•.~ . -.· .... - ::- -. . fata'i' has . . riow been. .· ·. .·.. . ,, .. . . re,versed . by the Cobrt' of AppcllI . ,: . ' ':· . ·'.\'." the_.. current aJJd... .. leg~ posiii.9-11_0[tb¢ law is ', ··.· :· : . ··---: .. . ·. •:' .· . . . .. . that, . •iri applications,. tile. appl}~arithas . . '-_. . .·._.. to cite. the rel_evanJ.pxovisic;in . ·. . -·. .. · ·.· fron1. ·- . . •' : . •·. Which the Court derives the i,owcr to "hear and' detcmiiiie. the applicatjon failure of ~hich the Court win not have .properly been 111oved he~cc the in.cory-1peteocy . . of the applicatiori . (sec: (C:A.. T) . Civil. Appc~I No. 45 of 2000, :~ .. . . Mbeya - Rukwa Autoparts & Transport Ltd . vs Jesting George ~ .,, :;, M-wakyoma; CiviJ ·Applkaticm No. 64 of 2003, CitibankTan7-anfa Ltd . . . and
Tanzania . . Telecommunichtions ~- Co. Ltd and. four. others . in wliich the. · follo"o/ing v,,erc cited, Abdul Aziz S<:leman v Ny~ki Fannlrs Co.operative . . "! . . . ~- . . . _. I Ltd 119661 EA 409~ Civil ;Application No. 20 of 1997, NBC and Sadrudin, Civil Application No. 88 of 1998, Alm:ts iddie Mwinyi versus ! i ' __ ....... 40405:13p p. 11 ~ ·/ . 1/ . !, . _✓:s.'-A" & co.1-TD.-MZIZI~_ MILL FfO< ~- 255 022 2B;(,1140 s,,,p. 24 2004 03:28Pt1 t-:UJ:.._ Pt/2 ·:•: "} NBC ~ud Ngensc Mbiw·; ~Z CivU -~pplication N_o>. 3 ()f ZOO) bctw~ N'albo lutiba Mkuta _(CC:\'!fand _Moha~d Ibrahim Vers! & SoAS; ZNZ CIYU AppliC11tioa-No,_2 ot2;3, b~ween H•mI•h A01buam Jh1a by bM Atwrncy Aj~r Patei and 1\t>duir~k Ju~s.- Suldm~n; Civil Application N6, 4/2004. . ·Abd1llbmid . .. . : ltinmdhan. . :~- . . . . Mujomo & ·2·. oihtrs .:Vetiut ·; ·.- . . All. ~ S_iilim All& 2 otict1}. - '.t .. . . ' .. 1:·:.·. ThU$, hiivmg ¢iteu o.J1 ipstciid of 0. 36, tile Applicam -il5 - ~ to.. f~. rcprcs~jing '. R.esp~;\dent~•. ~ in~vc:rtcntly-. C<lnsi4el:cd ·. as ~c .. il~~'lica119n:~ho~J~·-¥~t:6a~~-~LJt ~'~,~~~ri~~ ·• . ·.. ·." .. .· .· A}llt;;.i;¥,{h~Ji!;;is ~ n,j;iu,\ ihiJ J ¥iWoJ sJ;:Jii ·. be nlad~ on t h e ~ ,1~- . JJst for sake .9r eo~l~ness, e~en- i_f· ~e right provisio~ kd beeµ cit¢iyet i#Jt m.~ ~plica~ipn ViO~ld ·1uvc ~ailed. Wh,Jl·. 0. 36, Ru!~ 6 tic _;~bo~e .dted would o.oly -appiy when::' ;the . R~pondents
rue about lu <lt-~~ of their whole property. or part thereof~ . from the jurl_sdictiot1 of the. Court remove _lhc same. . "wllh itztenJ to ob:,;frucl . or delay executio11 of a11y d~rt:e tlraf may be pt;zssed against" them (Respondents}. p. 12 24 04 05:13p \ C :7: . .a,+i+i &iMB+i ii . P2/ 2 i, \ Sep. 24 2004 03:28PM --~,. ·.. : . FAX l-0_. : 255 -022 2861140 ;1 /5=0 & c~.-Lm. ~~~1~ MILL l 1. Herc, there· is no question of "dfrposa/" ot "rc11ioval" within the ·, meaning of the provision itatcd. As already observed, the s_hip in question is . in its n~nnat course .of business, plying between one. po11 and. another:,· . _loading ~ncr off loading cargos of different kinds. ~d i~. preparation to ·depart froITI. .. par ·. es Sal~m .. por1; ts.riot Qtit ofrion:nal1ty.·and ·.· . ·. _,., ·.· . . :·... . •, : th~efore .. · ·_..: theinientelemcnt . . ' to . . .'' -. . dbstrucijusti~ is latl.qng.. J( would have.b.een -dHforeI1t iJt~e argument w~ . .··.that tlle J\esp9.n,den~:4~e: inbapabJe 6f.meeti9g:_ihe~. o~l}gati..611Siri ill~ e~ent . .·. · ;:::11t::;11m-:{t:t~ttpp1t!4~:~·i: l~t:twd 1 bll.t ' • •• '• • • • • -i. . •; • I. •. ; • • - ; •, • •<: • •••••.: .. :. :• •~ •, • • . • : • '• • .• • For reasons sratca •the application is inc_Qrppetc.nt anci, i_s ber~by stru¢k ·: but with cosrs/. .·. ... ·. . . . - ... . . · .. .. . . ,. ! . . '·: .•· . .· 1 •• I ' ' ' ••• ~. •: • f • • •• • • • ·:.•·;···: ·~=--> :·. <·:· ..-.·.-:..- ·'·.::.·. ·'•'.: ....... :, · :· ..,·,. ·: . ·."·.·,_·. .:.·'.•_:_,. ;.:.· .,:. ~-:: '.<.<. :1\. ·,, ·.· ·.· : :·• ..: ·::Th~.-:irif¢'rirn injµrictivei)rdcr: ag~inst fy:ty Den.ltj: Pr~iuici iss11cd ·9n 14/9/2004 ts hcr~hy .rilised: . . . . .. . . .. . . . •. •... . .. · L.B. KALEG.EYA. JlJDGt Delivered· .r!l_/1,!__/ L.B. KALEGEY/\
JUDGE 24/9/2004 .. !.322 words .I
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.