adept impex ltd vs natural wood t ltd others 2009 tzhccomd 12 22 april 2009

adept impex ltd vs natural wood t ltd others 2009 tzhccomd 12 22 april 2009

The plaintiff failed to provide credible and concrete evidence of sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction, and the majority foreign shareholding justifies the requirement for security for costs. The application to set aside the order is refused.

Citation
adept impex ltd vs natural wood t ltd others 2009 tzhccomd 12 22 april 2009
Parties
Plaintiff: Adept Impex Limited; 1st Defendant: Natural Wood (T) Limited; 2nd Defendant: Frank Roger Nindie; 3rd Defendant: Faraji Salum Juma
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
22 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Commercial Case / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Order for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application to set aside the order for deposit of security for costs is refused.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Corporate Veil, Jurisdiction, Company Law
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Security for Costs Corporate Veil Jurisdiction Company Law

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adept Impex Limited

Plaintiff

Natural Wood (T) Limited

1st Defendant

Frank Roger Nindie

2nd Defendant

Faraji Salum Juma

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Case / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Order for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence to set aside the order for security for costs
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff company possesses sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction to avoid security for costs
  3. 3 Whether the majority foreign shareholding justifies the order for security for costs

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to provide credible and concrete evidence of sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction, and the majority foreign shareholding justifies the requirement for security for costs. The application to set aside the order is refused.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside the order for deposit of security for costs is refused.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's application is refused.
  • Respondent (defendants) shall have costs of the application.