Download PDF

Tanzania Judgment

TZHC

afra masudi vs kwacha transport company others 1998 tzhc 35 24 september 1998

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

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. Maftah

Kwacha Transport Company

Respondent Counsel: Mr. Kilindu

Five Others

Respondent Counsel: Mr. Kilindu

03

Procedural history

  1. 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

  1. 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.

Source document

TZHC

Judgment· 24 September 1998

afra masudi vs kwacha transport company others 1998 tzhc 35 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.

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Mulji v. Jadavji (1963) S.A. 217

Case cited

Section 95 Civil Procedure Code

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.