afriscan construction company ltd and another vs afriscan group t ltd and 2 others 2021 tzhccomd 3311 16 august 2021

afriscan construction company ltd and another vs afriscan group t ltd and 2 others 2021 tzhccomd 3311 16 august 2021

The applicant's advocate is disqualified due to conflict of interest arising from prior representation of the respondents. However, the absence of a board resolution is excused due to deadlock among shareholders and directors, distinguishing this case from binding precedent. Applicants are allowed time to appoint...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
afriscan construction company ltd and another vs afriscan group t ltd and 2 others 2021 tzhccomd 3311 16 august 2021
Parties
Applicant: Afriscan Construction Company Ltd; Applicant: David Joseph Mahende; Respondent: Afriscan Group (T) Ltd; Respondent: Ulf Nilson Ltd; Respondent: Hon. Attorney General
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
16 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Commercial Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objections
Outcome
Second preliminary objection (conflict of interest) partially upheld; first preliminary objection (board resolution) overruled.
Legal Topics
Board Resolution for Company Litigation, Conflict of Interest for Advocates, Overriding Objective Principle
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Company Law Legal Ethics Board Resolution for Company Litigation Conflict of Interest for Advocates Overriding Objective Principle

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Afriscan Construction Company Ltd

Applicant

David Joseph Mahende

Applicant

Afriscan Group (T) Ltd

Respondent

Ulf Nilson Ltd

Respondent

Hon. Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Commercial Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objections

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application is incompetent for lack of a board resolution authorizing the company to sue
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's advocate is conflicted due to prior representation of the respondents

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's advocate is disqualified due to conflict of interest arising from prior representation of the respondents. However, the absence of a board resolution is excused due to deadlock among shareholders and directors, distinguishing this case from binding precedent. Applicants are allowed time to appoint new counsel rather than having the application struck out.

Court Disposition

Second preliminary objection (conflict of interest) partially upheld; first preliminary objection (board resolution) overruled.

Orders

  • Mr Mnyele is disqualified from acting for the applicants due to conflict of interest.
  • Applicants are given until 6th September 2021 to appoint new counsel.