t international container terminal services ticts vs star east africa t co ltd 2005 tzhccomd 25 24 january 2005

t international container terminal services ticts vs star east africa t co ltd 2005 tzhccomd 25 24 january 2005

The applicant failed to provide sufficient reasons for the delay in seeking amendment, as all relevant information was available at the time of preparing the original defence. Therefore, the interests of justice do not require granting leave to amend after the scheduling order.

Citation
t international container terminal services ticts vs star east africa t co ltd 2005 tzhccomd 25 24 january 2005
Parties
Applicant/defendant: Tanzania International Container Terminal Services (TICTS); 1st Respondent/1st Plaintiff: Star East Africa (T) Company Ltd; 2nd Respondent/2nd Plaintiff: Bish Consumer Electronics Ltd
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
24 January 2005
Procedural Posture
Commercial Case / Application for Leave to Amend Written Statement of Defence After Scheduling Order
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Scheduling Orders, Counter Claims, Delay in Application
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Amendment of Pleadings Scheduling Orders Counter Claims Delay in Application

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tanzania International Container Terminal Services (TICTS)

Applicant/defendant

Star East Africa (T) Company Ltd

1st Respondent/1st Plaintiff

Bish Consumer Electronics Ltd

2nd Respondent/2nd Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Commercial Case / Application for Leave to Amend Written Statement of Defence After Scheduling Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant should be granted leave to amend the written statement of defence to include a counter-claim after a scheduling order has been made
  2. 2 Whether sufficient reasons for the delay in seeking amendment have been shown

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide sufficient reasons for the delay in seeking amendment, as all relevant information was available at the time of preparing the original defence. Therefore, the interests of justice do not require granting leave to amend after the scheduling order.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for leave to amend the written statement of defence is dismissed.