20171107 TZCA Dar es Salaam 1

20171107 TZCA Dar es Salaam 1

The applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the first respondent is impecunious, near bankruptcy, or acting in bad faith so as to justify an order for security for costs. The burden of proof lies on the applicant, and mere apprehension is insufficient. The application, though citing inapplicable provisions, was competent due to inclusion of an applicable provision.

Citation
20171107 TZCA Dar es Salaam 1
Parties
Applicant: Advatech Office Supplies Limited; 1st Respondent: Ms. Farhia Abdullah Noor; 2nd Respondent: Bolsto Solutions Limited
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
7 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs Pending Revision Application
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Appellate Procedure, Discretion of Court, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Appellate Procedure Discretion of Court Burden of Proof

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

Parties

Advatech Office Supplies Limited

Applicant

Ms. Farhia Abdullah Noor

1st Respondent

Bolsto Solutions Limited

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs Pending Revision Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an order compelling the respondent to deposit security for costs in a pending revision application
  2. 2 Whether citing both applicable and inapplicable provisions renders the application incompetent
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's financial status justifies an order for security for costs

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the first respondent is impecunious, near bankruptcy, or acting in bad faith so as to justify an order for security for costs. The burden of proof lies on the applicant, and mere apprehension is insufficient. The application, though citing inapplicable provisions, was competent due to inclusion of an applicable provision.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for security for costs is dismissed with costs.