agro impex tanzania ltd vs riyaz gulamani others 2011 tzhc 2015 15 november 2011

agro impex tanzania ltd vs riyaz gulamani others 2011 tzhc 2015 15 november 2011

The Plaintiff failed to prove, even on a balance of probabilities, that the judgment and decree in Civil Case No. 339 of 1999 were obtained by fraud or collusion, or that the restraint order from Civil Case No. 342 of 1999 subsisted at the material time. The Plaintiff did not establish how the Defendants intentionally defrauded him or the court. The suit was therefore dismissed.

Citation
agro impex tanzania ltd vs riyaz gulamani others 2011 tzhc 2015 15 november 2011
Parties
Plaintiff: Agroimpex (Tanzania) Ltd; 1st Defendant: Riyaz Gulamani; 2nd Defendant: Yogesh Manek; 3rd Defendant: Exim Bank (T) Limited
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
15 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Suit dismissed
Legal Topics
Fraud, Collusion, Share Transfer, Burden of Proof, Restraint Orders
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Company Law Fraud Collusion Share Transfer Burden of Proof Restraint Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Agroimpex (Tanzania) Ltd

Plaintiff

Riyaz Gulamani

1st Defendant

Yogesh Manek

2nd Defendant

Exim Bank (T) Limited

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judgment and decree in Civil Case No. 339 of 1999 were obtained by fraud and collusion
  2. 2 Whether the transfer of shares from the 1st Defendant to the 2nd Defendant was void due to a subsisting restraint order
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to damages and other reliefs

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff failed to prove, even on a balance of probabilities, that the judgment and decree in Civil Case No. 339 of 1999 were obtained by fraud or collusion, or that the restraint order from Civil Case No. 342 of 1999 subsisted at the material time. The Plaintiff did not establish how the Defendants intentionally defrauded him or the court. The suit was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Suit dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiff to pay costs of 2nd and 3rd Defendants