a sd company ltd and albert malangalila vs crdb bank ltd another 2009 tzhccomd 3 5 october 2009

a sd company ltd and albert malangalila vs crdb bank ltd another 2009 tzhccomd 3 5 october 2009

The application for injunction was incompetent because it was brought under the wrong legal provisions (sections 68(e) and 95 of the Civil Procedure Code) instead of the specific provisions under Order XXXVII, which govern interlocutory orders. Where specific rules exist, general powers cannot be invoked.

Citation
a sd company ltd and albert malangalila vs crdb bank ltd another 2009 tzhccomd 3 5 october 2009
Parties
Applicant: A & SD Company Ltd; Applicant: Albert Malangalila; Respondent: CRDB Bank Limited; Interested Party: Amb. Hassan Omari Gumbo Kibello
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
5 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Commercial Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objections and Application for Injunction
Outcome
Application struck out as incompetent with costs to the respondent.
Legal Topics
Execution of Decrees, Injunctions, Receivership, Sale of Immovable Property
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Execution of Decrees Injunctions Receivership Sale of Immovable Property

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A & SD Company Ltd

Applicant

Albert Malangalila

Applicant

CRDB Bank Limited

Respondent

Amb. Hassan Omari Gumbo Kibello

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Commercial Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objections and Application for Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for injunction is competent given the cited legal provisions
  2. 2 Whether the sale by the receiver was valid or irregular
  3. 3 Whether the application is an abuse of process or sub judice

Ratio Decidendi

The application for injunction was incompetent because it was brought under the wrong legal provisions (sections 68(e) and 95 of the Civil Procedure Code) instead of the specific provisions under Order XXXVII, which govern interlocutory orders. Where specific rules exist, general powers cannot be invoked.

Court Disposition

Application struck out as incompetent with costs to the respondent.

Orders

  • The application for injunction is struck out.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.