20040924 TZHC Dar es Salaam 1

20040924 TZHC Dar es Salaam 1

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.

Citation
20040924 TZHC Dar es Salaam 1
Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: Said Saum Bakhresa & Co. Limited; Defendant/respondent: Master of MV Denler Premier, Dar es Salaam Port; Defendant/respondent: Denler Trade Limited, London
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
24 September 2004
Procedural Posture
Commercial Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Injunction/attachment Before Judgment
Outcome
Application struck out with costs.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Attachment Before Judgment, Wrong Citation of Law, Carriage of Goods by Sea, Jurisdictional Objections
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Maritime Law Interlocutory Injunctions Attachment Before Judgment Wrong Citation of Law Carriage of Goods by Sea Jurisdictional Objections

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Said Saum Bakhresa & Co. Limited

Plaintiff/applicant

Master of MV Denler Premier, Dar es Salaam Port

Defendant/respondent

Denler Trade Limited, London

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Injunction/attachment Before Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for injunction/attachment before judgment was properly brought under the correct provision of law
  2. 2 Whether the prerequisites for attachment before judgment or injunction were satisfied
  3. 3 Whether the applicant established a risk of removal or disposal of property to obstruct execution

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.

Court Disposition

Application struck out with costs.

Orders

  • Interim injunctive order against MV Denler Premier issued on 14/9/2004 is hereby raised (vacated).