afra masudi vs kwacha transport company others 1998 tzhc 35 24 september 1998
- Citation
- afra masudi vs kwacha transport company others 1998 tzhc 35 24 september 1998
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 24 September 1998
- Posture
- Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 24 September 1998
- Posture
- Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Section 95 of the Civil Procedure Code does not confer powers to appoint a caretaker when an express provision exists; application rejected as not properly before the court.
Court disposition
Application rejected with costs.
Orders
- Application rejected
- Costs awarded to respondents
02
Material facts
Parties
Afra Masudi
Applicant Counsel: Mr. MaftahKwacha Transport Company
Respondent Counsel: Mr. KilinduFive Others
Respondent Counsel: Mr. Kilindu03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether section 95 of the Civil Procedure Code can be invoked to appoint a caretaker when an express provision exists
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Requested appointment of a fit and proper person other than respondents as collector and caretaker of house rent and debts, relying on section 95 of the Civil Procedure Code.
- Respondent
- Raised preliminary objection that section 95 of the Civil Procedure Code does not confer such powers and cannot be invoked where an express provision exists.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Mulji v. Jadavji (1963) S.A. 217
Section 95 of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be invoked where an express provision exists for the remedy sought.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Section 95 of the Civil Procedure Code does not confer powers to appoint a caretaker when an express provision exists; application rejected as not properly before the court.
Court disposition
Application rejected with costs.
- Application rejected
- Costs awarded to respondents
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 24 September 1998
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
TZHC
Judgment· 24 September 1998
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (DAE ES SALAAM DISTRICT REGISTRY)
AT PAR ES SALAAM MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL CAPSB NO.64/1996 AFRA MASUDI ..... ....... ............. . ... APPLICANT Versus KWACHA TRANSPORT COMPANY AND ) ......... .... RESPONDENTS 5 OTHERS )
R U L I N G CHIPETA. J. r In this milatter, the petitioner, Afra Masudi, has petitioned this Court for, inter alia.an order that the respondents, ■ M/S Kwacha Trarusport Co. and five others, do furnish audited accounts of the first r ^spondent for the last 10 years. Meanwhile the petitioner filed an application for an order that this Court should appoint a fit and proper person other than i the respondents as collector and caretaker of the first respondennt*s house rent and debts. The application cited section 95 of the Civil Procedure Code as the enabling provisions of the law. Mr, Kilindu, learned counsel, for the respondents, raised a preliminary objection to the application to the effect that the application is bad in law in that section 95 of the Civil Procedure Code does not, on its own, confer any powers on anyone to do or not to do certain things. With the consent of the Court, the learned advocates of the parties filed written submissions# I have carefully considered those, submissions and the authorities cited. In my view, there is ample authority for the provisions of slection 95 of the Civil Procedure Code cannot fee invoked, on their own, where there is an express provision of law by. which the remedy sought may be granted. (See Mul.ji v. Jadavji, (1963) S.A. 217). For these reasons, whatever may be the substance of the ..application, I am constrained to reject this application for being 'j4%pt properly before the court. This application is accordingly out with costs. B. D. CHIP3TA
JUDGE Ruling delivered in Chambers this 2^th day of September, 1998. B. D 0 CHIPETA JUDGE ' Mr. Maftah for applicant Mr. Kilindu for Respondents.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.