basil nicholaus alexander jennings bramly vs phokion filios others 1997 tzhc 222 17 september 1997

basil nicholaus alexander jennings bramly vs phokion filios others 1997 tzhc 222 17 september 1997

The applicant demonstrated a serious issue to be tried regarding his shareholding and the risk of dissipation of company assets by the 1st respondent. The court found that irreparable harm would result if the assets were disposed of before the suit's determination, and that the requirements for a temporary injunction under Order 37 CPC were satisfied.

Citation
basil nicholaus alexander jennings bramly vs phokion filios others 1997 tzhc 222 17 september 1997
Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: Basil Nicholas Alexander Jennings Bramly; 1st Defendant/respondent: Phokion Filios; 2nd Defendant/respondent: A & F Contractors Ltd.; 3rd Defendant/respondent: Expo Tanzania Ltd.
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
17 September 1997
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Application for Temporary Injunction
Outcome
Application for temporary injunction granted.
Legal Topics
Temporary Injunction, Shareholder Rights, Company Asset Protection
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Company Law Temporary Injunction Shareholder Rights Company Asset Protection

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 1 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Basil Nicholas Alexander Jennings Bramly

Plaintiff/applicant

Phokion Filios

1st Defendant/respondent

A & F Contractors Ltd.

2nd Defendant/respondent

Expo Tanzania Ltd.

3rd Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Application for Temporary Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the 1st respondent from disposing of or liquidating the assets of the 2nd and 3rd respondents pending determination of the suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant demonstrated a serious issue to be tried regarding his shareholding and the risk of dissipation of company assets by the 1st respondent. The court found that irreparable harm would result if the assets were disposed of before the suit's determination, and that the requirements for a temporary injunction under Order 37 CPC were satisfied.

Court Disposition

Application for temporary injunction granted.

Orders

  • 1st respondent is restrained from disposing of the assets of the 2nd and 3rd respondents or liquidating the said companies until determination of the main suit.