20100108 TZHC Dar es Salaam

• RULING .. ' ' j i I i I 1 I ' . l : l

II I I . : ,j .. ,•· ·: -i.~: ) ' '• I ;! '. I . ~/1/',P/Z): . . applicant filed the present applicatio for stay; but on 17 /11/2009;, .. the Registrar Issued'. an otder fo "brocla~ation for sale/I: yet ·on:: . · ;_ · · · I I · . · ·..· ; - · : : 15/12/2009,, the· Registrar issued an order worded. as Jollows, '.'. -_. . :·, . . . . I I. . ~- ' .. :f :ii ;r-;>;i1 . . . . . . •1 hearing on 15/2/2010, status quo be maintained till then. I . :i?,·{;f~ir i-::. \•.:. 11 '_q •• ' .:.::.; --1. •. ,_, •• - •· • - .

2. It is n.ot clear to me what s~atus quo Jas ordered to be niaintained; it; · · ·· · I I · : · : was only following complaints by the r¢spondents regarding the-stalled; , 1 :~:c:l~;~:h:h::/:~:;J::s ~;i:n: ~i:~eq~::~;J: : Pl1~i •. 5 ' . ' ..the pr~sent _applic.ition ~led on 4io,1012009 subjeF•"lai~[; ~f ; j ';l .1 ·· : - this ruling .. It 1s to be noted ,that the application sought to,be stayed 1s. 1· l -.~ , the Registra~'~ order ot 13/10/koog ~!though long· after the {<~:i:i a .licant ·.filetd the' 1: .•·-.:-.:, • •,· · I rekent I a lication : 1 , on . 20 10 2609•:.·i.~Qnt ' . 17 11 2009 L the Re isfrar issued a i reclamation for sale- almost ari _, end ~roC:~ss in eo<ecution. 1J is not cle1r agaih what proinpted th~ l~s ' '' <j,; 1 orde~ of. 15/12/2009, su'bject ~f cdmplain~ by the respond~.n~;· 0:' ' ... ' ', ;. whether the p~oclamation fdr s,,ie was ·stayed by that la~t--;rd~f)Jfi,;~//i~} :< ·_ · i I · ---- . /:J ·. · What is clear from the \above ij that the decree remains unexecuted but three issu~s h~ve exerdised my mind. the first ;is. : ·. . w!ietrler the Cl!i r~nt~p[l1!r;•J':i0n lrned onlo110l2009to s;~ a~idlt~J: ·· \j; i .. i . R' e9istrar's ol"der inade on ;13/l$12009 ..v~rLs nor overtakeri bY: et1n~-.I . ' ' . .. :, . ' .I I ' •• • C' ·. ;. ; .i1,:.: ;;::~~!:n:~::::~hi:;~~:·:::;r~:~a;J;: ::r,;;,::,::h:~::h:;r;) ,.·•·.·,·, order in execution- that 1s whether the

order made -.by the Reg1stra -.· : :-) 'T : .. . . . .: i .: , . . i l . . I ; ;' ; :, . . . .; . : '. . on 15/12/2009 ordedng the status quo : aintained, which amolihh/ : .. , . :::r; to ani order for stay tan be revi4wed by_ his court. And last,j~hith'~l-: .· · .:if,'.; . . I _.;ui~r,.,,~i'-'c:.•_•tt .• , -.,.,}"J - . . . . -~, ': 'l, -,rv~x~,;:.~;f.; .<. t f:,,:-J : ·-.. ,i. . ' '. ·' '.' ' ,. J ·,:~ .! . I I 3 .I : 4

I I I .i I · . :: . . · ' ct} ,;'1Lo 1 <) I , : •. and 95 _of the CPC read togeth7r with rtle j and (1) (2) of :h.e .. · Lab,ollr c6;u~ r.ule~; I fihd tha,t th_i, court har in.h~re~t powers td the matter m the interest of Justice. · . I ·· · a~:r~· :, .: : . :: ;· . ; 1 · ; Thafd6~e I fi~diit necessai, to givJ.a bri~f back9t60nd'iofihe.: ' 1 1 history oi'~h~i disp ~tJ between ~\:he partibs p;/ortcrthe impugned·-. I•:·. , ·-i, ~ . I . Registrar;s ·order for :a better a preciatio~ of !the reasons for: my decision, even at the risk of mak\ng this !uling ;unduly Ion~; I find it i conve8ie~t to give the same chrohologically in point form a~ folfo~s:- j ; l , · . . :i.. i · · · ; · • ·I ~ , ,: : j, . . . if" :. f ,. ' '' I-' ..• ' . ' ; .... 1 ; J (:': ·: :.. ::· ' I ·r · - · .. i'. ~'.~>(\·· i · :: I · · · ~ - ' ~" • " ' ', •: f' " 1 t·: I i .1 1. The respondents . referried a dispute· '·to . the CM-6! of unfair ' 1· :! tefmina~ibn I again.st t~e applic nt _o~ 11;12;2007 claiming 1 .; . 'Ji 'compensation' of ail a~dunt equal_ to 12·.~0nth.s ?a!Qry and Other. . :·. . : I : . ·. , . ., .. ·. : statutory rights. On 2015!12008, the CMA issued an exparte award under section 87 (3) of t~e Act. I , I . . } . .t .... :.1 .. :"i, ; .. ! . : . . '. · : l · il -··::' : .:; 2.. ~Sl;lbsequently, the respondents m ,de an ,application for executioril : .• 111 ·· ,,1 . of:·th.atcl~c~ee dated

10}6/2006 rJgiste~e6 as N·o, '170/2008. That, ·;. ;,. :~:~:;~~~~~::d~y ~~ .:Pt~a~~~c~~j~li~~tt~~,p~:i: : t~~~dc~~~:: . , . t•~~~ i~--;~~~;~n. it =~~~:d;:~~~d!.-~~~~Re~i:~~;/;~~;~~6~. ;: , ... . ,1 . should point out that at ieast at th~ stage!, the employ~r was aware: :·: . ~ ' ' .:; . . ·l!~ . Qt~~i§i~n'ce of th~ case P-t~ferred Jy·iti_eI.l:~ilQy_e,es) ' i i '. ( :::.. ,:j !:.:._.·•ti.:... t. ::: ..:.·:~:.rx; '.· · i .I'··• ·•·l' · :· · :I •; ' I :J·;::, ~-. ~l:3 ... Affer ai;~~~ber'of proc~sses, the .. :R ·~a· e.an orderon·2s/8/200~ . !; 1 ,I L • . ·'. 1· : . , j · . 'i , : : · ·I ·. that: "The app/icant/responden is ordered to file his application · . . of review at CMA With+ one we k and[tb deposit ...._.as sec~n:ty;j .. ·.,; ::;·. Apparently the matter proceeded! at the CMA as mdtcated beloJi · · .· 1 ' ! ,: .I ., :. ' . ' •. _;' ·_._i· .. 5 I : I .,i •1 .I '1 ;·;Ui)/U . . ·.,:·)'' ,' . '·, · 'f' ..· · c6rder/state1Tlent) in t~e recordfII titleb "MaelekeZci' g / .. • I Ja ·i'iJ'~~I" Kuh usu ·Usahihi wa' Tuzo". stating that t e correct and on,ly award , 'j' i,os21d2 a··~dhot th~ se~d~d·;·j~~ i :. ' : : w~s the one 'with the fig'.ure '.40 84 . ' i~ !~ts~.~•, of. shs 361 ,482566. ~' w~pse ,~jip~~t\Tsi~•~l~}.o~+: ;: al oint dut that 'thls'w~~fi·tfi~~third 'fr·, . ,"' t,, 1 1 •. 'verify/understand. I shouid a ain ti~e th~ di~·pute betwe~n the pa~ies wa~ considered by the . · ;

·: t ·.i ·• · -< CM;JI :. . ·. ' 1 and the a licant was re: resented. r. : . · · i 1· · :' i . .r ?· _U_j~i-~~-t~ly,_r,~vision, 239/iW0~ was ~he1u.l_ed for hearin,g bef?r.ithi:~ ~--· .!: ,::} T. couri:"and i? 'its ruling dJted 30/ 4#009; fdelivered in] p~~~\,\!tii~ l · i • .\ ,r · . .; b?t~..~p~rti~s _repre~enyitives~ R~~visi on' 23~/2~.o~ were ordered consolidated and, . l; 1 ~ · 1?d,\ 1'.~~~0~ r ·i . · "t:,i. : tl. ·. f · . ·. · .'. ! . i. }. the ·c:~A award s~bject ma' 'er of both revision! 'ap~l{¢atldnJ ··;. ! •. ~:·•:;: 'i!· :'. •· quashkd on gro~nd that t~l·~ CMA had proceJd~d ··witglbu~ l ··: . . I :: . -~ jurisdiftion .when\ it failed to firs\ hear the applic~t!og {on~ '. . '.:: · .\; condonation of late referral filed by, the applicants; r ;; : :~ 1 ·,r , · ~: · ·:· t ,. , ' l . I' I J • l L,,'.•• ,,. ,' ' • f. •:; '.;'1 6.\ultimately it was\e,rdered tHat th~lmatter.,:s/2ou1d,.stah~i'~~;t'.,}'-\\ ··.'.~ · ~ · · 1 d ·· 1 ' · .,l , ·1 '... ~11;·,· (. :l· :·1<f.;.JW!lt'!lif.~,.,·· '\· j(: - , t .P .-iithlri.{J.f!f1'.)i'\1 , 1 . .-, rf was aft~r. the con pnation for.. was filed, and the aispate"rshou/~1.1r,r:,f:'.'."'<I 1 ill : thereafter be processed according to law" and; . I. ! i c. The court expressJd its disma~ and disbelief regarbing.th~ is~uJ : ' j' I ' .: ·. • of appearance of two CMA awards from same proceeding~. ; , . . . I I I• . ': ·. . i ,, .

,.,,l.,.~.~,.·-=·~~-~b"''*;'" :t:,o/.·-:•'.' :· . ,)'f:'· :l1 · ·. 8.''Th~ 'cMA 'theh heard the applic~tioW~for/ condonation' of i'ateref~rr~·,,·r. '. . · 1 .. • ;. ·.. \, k;.~ti~;f~J~-~ ,: ~>i ,,.,<':;, .·( ~-·•· "..r -f..- '"t·:1 :. _:' . 1~/7 /~009._ Th~~~d~~[r.~}~:J:. .J-J:: J) .. 1 I i .. ; . , e~pa~e an'd. granted t~ e same oh 1 I 1 \ ·i ~ . .: '. dispute wa~ arbitrated aigain expa·~~i e' and. an award '\SbJe~~fu~tt~~~;- '. ~. :.: . l!< I i. ;:;·;: 1 : •· ·ti~ t.i~~ ·~ppli·~~nt's· key ~omplaint issued ·on ·1sj9J.10:o~~{,~5.~§-.,,;;-:,).:·· t\) - l J : .·'', :..,; I . .:_:i\ . '. .: execution ap'' plication ·No 418/20 .9 was filed in '. · l t~i1 ~~:J~'.. .f~;"° 5/10/2009. as: ~xplai~ed. herer _r have read th,e a~~r1ti7, : '. \ . question, the arbitrator therein explained that both the. appl1catlo~'. • · . ·,· ·r: for :tt,·~donk'tion. and thJ, arbitratio·g werel c'onducted \J~Sak~;;t~N~~~<LH:r ;~;:~rt ·· '.. .· I ·· · .. · · t''.°•t;~~· ··,l.,iijt111~.:~; ~1··t1r~~ •,•r;-j;i;.·~ ]·•.,,,,;~••·;,#'i',1 $q);!J:,•: ,I;•·;'.-, . . i, . . I . . :· '.tr ·~I, . /f ;f 1\ 1~ !• ' , ·. ,·., 7 ' ....~- ... ···- . ·- -~,., ' , •• _.,;,., I • • ,_~ to appear. I ' . I ' I· ' '· . applicJ::u::::~, e:e:u~i::sp:fterh:a:Aalr:~::: resPond~llts ~ant it executed. hr Msem ·afofI .the 'ap~n!~n{ ::;~c:::~: :~: ' ; ~tie:: . :', 1 .r:, '' i ' • i • • '• ' ' I ' ~ . i , gr~·unds, for the application

in his! ~ffidavit and oral submission:. They , ' r. • , ' . 1 I : I ' I' ! t,' ' I . . ~ - • , . I . can be summed up thus:- • The applicant has filed a twin application in· the CMA; . : I I : ' I :~xtension of time tf. c3p:ly Jto S!\fa.f'.~~./~~,J~parte, r: .I, .~::~:~,r: :::e :~~:: ~J::t : ~~~nt:!~~~~~te 'l'j 0 applicant was not se~ed to apbear. • ' 0 1 1(; f · ' I I . • In response to the respondent's averment in tHe· affidavit, · · ·. , that the applicant Jas serv4d vicie his adv~cate.'.oni 1 i I ' . . , ~uta hiwha, he subritted tH~~ the; latte,r;1,, 1~~ i:~t~~ instructed to represe~t the ap !leant, as such; ·service on ' ' ' .. I l : him amounted to no service. • I . I j . '' '::'"";'."\---·~;· ;:: ;;-,(, d,.v:•:--~~... ·~- f.~\.o<..t-l·;;:-;,h,- rh-.1 u"'PPl;.,...-;;,,·j;',,c·~r-.s pe" nu....:•,r:·,.r:r·•;, '.· • --~ :· -·•- '--• -'- ·- '7°"'"'-~ . . ·----, -••'- 1•....__\,, • ';;;J ••.• ' • ' . \ ' ' ' . ~. f . •.· the CMA would be rendered n gatory, on the o.ther hand, · -:;. . ': ' ,· . ' l , I \ i:.-· ' ,, 1,~· ,., .. ' "~~ the.applicant's ,._, . , . busin~ss.is soliql and jt)s;c;:l. p9.pl~·.<?~d?~Y.in.,•-_g_ ·Li. , :.;,.;.;i, I , [r ·1 . t , ..• t,/J:••·t~•t,,f Jl ~It i1 ~L .., ' ;..-t'ilii' I f' . 'the decree holders t- but rni(y aft~r '°the : ~~s~~1~r~t~ri~~ ~!•b~: 1~!:~~l 1 1 inter-partes and theiri entitlemlnts p~oved. . I · , ·. . ,i., , ·~;~ : l • I

I I I • ' I I. I•+, In response, Mr. Malomi for the respondents submitted that:- I • I I . i j~ .• ~· ,1, 1· , ,•,. 8 i j ivq,p-'c(%. - : ;~ ·• The facts disclos:ed in the a~plicant'sia1!' ivit:and submis?o.r?Tn:r·,,.: .., court lack merit as no J sufficie~t callse to suip6\-t-,the [ _ ·_ !? . application for stay have b~en discldsed. : : /.· ; .... _:; . : · · • +n regard to the exparte 1ward, c~unsel ·submitted tha~,- the I _'. . ·,;·. ;; .I ' ·: ;. · \1ppllca·nt was duly ·served .accordin~ to law. Service :was madet . ··I . i ,· .1 - .: / .t. : :. -· . · -, i I .•·' -./ .-::.: : ·: .·::_-/"-: l-.1~··+:·::· ! . \ : . ,1 ·'.} : •· ;vide .the advocate. who reP,resented Ithe· applicant m the tase: at ,. . ! .· :l'1>'/"thk 12~:~ a.nd sL6sJquent ~pp.licatidn f6f r~vrsion idsi a1ridf23~. f.:. ; 1 ' :· · (exp.lained herein :~bove). . , . .: II That eJhically I and as· a m1tt~/~d:;. ·-:- I ,. ' . .. . . 1 . . . . . ,. procedure, if the· advocate had I ceased to. represent. th . :. ! applicant, either himself cir the apJlicanti sho_uld have inforrrie~ , the respondents and the JMA but d~id not. - · " •:,-,,{; .. ·• ·, I , · 'ii ::'< Ji ·,·1· • l , i · ! . ~· ~ . i ' . l : ; I I . . i i ,• . I' - ~ , .· .. J . ,. ,. In repiy, the applicant silibmitted 1 that" i servi~e td ·a: for~~t · · : I ; I · , , _ I advocate is no proper serviqe, that Mr.- Rutahihwa !was neve1r: - · :

·. i~strLcted by the applicant to handle tt e cas~ in the c~A fol!OJrnb · ;. . .· .. . . I . . I .this cou;t's order of 30/4/2009 - (from the. facts the fourth .tim~ . i. I I I ' ' :.'~r~u,~?{·:~·11 : ., ).i; . . . / : ' .i . '.., , · .;, ·.f . f . i, : · I I , 1· ,._ . ;/.: s:-~ . : .; . i . . i . . ,: .,;' ' . .. • . ' . . • ;') .:' ,' ' '''i"'A"ttissu2 ior_ decit10:n 'is oni na meiy 'vvffeti·~'e1;. of\10t gbod ··te,a~d;: .~: . have been~ adduced' t~ ~~kel this COlilrt e)e-~cise. I~- distr~tibklm:. I . ':. / : Jav()ur of. granting the app+ for orf er. TO· begi~,Jtl9.l}j[}'J~ · -_._- j sub,missrons "made by counsel ifor the respondents thaf°~h aj:>'p~~nbr. : ·.. ·::_•ti) , . , . . I ! '1 pending ~p~lication; in thi~ cast cannot) operate ·as.a• bar! to executi6n · ! <;l ' ' I of decree. Stay can l:>e ord~red on conditions stipulated by lay-J·. 1 l ! ' I ' • • 1 Co~sidering the issue, the CA~ in Albert Braga~za & AnothJ; vs Mr~ .. Filra": /: :) -• i : - ! -- - -r j _,·;· ; ' ' " ' . ' . '

I I I .. , / ' i I .,I I ) . I .. ,;/ .. ;-1. ;.., . ' ,\ ,. ·:1 J , . ,'l fl . J • 10 I • .I I i I . I ' • I I•• ;t i': . ' . .Without prejudging ·the case before the ~1; ,' . ·i MA/ it is . vious the applic;ant was awareiof the casJ all the rlim , iparticularly ~he; secontj and third ti rile the. ~ame was before trle CMA. He had k:ounseL If. · · i~br~c±it>~s had be~~ ·,rem~ved from cou~sel t~e f~urth ;t!~~;la~oundj . -t~e·. '. advoqite ~ .: ·. . : vJas dJJ bo~nd tb inform - he o~her side and t:h~ CMAl ·: : I . : There:'was no eviden;ce.- to showj that he id and as held a: nu'mber d t1~es·: '. . by th~;'.courts I . . tau ntiry negligence. . . . ., rhthis I or fr1a,ctibn ~n lh~: I l I pa·: ' ·. I ' . . o·f counsel ii not sufficient;:causk for extending time. l wish to in~it;· · . ttie apf)ncaflt tObe +ndfui of t~e ~bse~ation~ made bV Lub~va Jd ·. :pp:i::::o:::d::":fv:9:::dcrl~~:h:t:h~:~ in::ia:i::~;~u~~~::· was put_up a's·a gro~nd for extehding ti~ethat: ., \· · • : I I I ' I ' ,. ' 1 · • 11 The legal ph~ition regarding neglige ce and inaction in the l. · ·. -. I. j ' •• O! ' : I ·• : ! i '.: I , .· ·• performance:- ot:Counsel'si duty in onducting the _clief!t's i •: . :;! 1 ., .: : cases has· b~en ~reclpitulated in a n mber bt cases by the·; ·• , ·::. :'[ '· L:, .:; f~urt ;f Ap#e~/ ·~. Eastern Africa and ~his Court It is ; ·.1 i · . _ common knowledge that-negligence r

inaction on the part I · ;: ,;· . \' 'l '. of coun~e/ whi~h catses i/2 ordinate •·elay in the processing l , , , ': ... :' .. .:, . of 'taseS:- haJ:iJdrm}~lv bekn held bJ: the Coutts as. n~t as l : : .;:., :'., 1 (; hbi''scmden~rea,t;/1'.~r e{tenaing-rAe t,/,;t31under Rui~·1Jo,-; '.· ·. -~ I : ,, '. . .::w~~:; i:t:tu;::sJ:;:;::i:::::r::p!:;;t>·!"·: •·;;·. upon t'7e lt/~;:.it~ ··or kidiJidud t.asek misiak~ .Dl LOuAs;i 1! ! I I : • may be considered as sumcient caJse. The logical behi(ld . . I I I this is easy_t°' _appreciat4. Once a'1i indivi~ual person ~as , ' ,,. '·l entrusted hJ or her case :to counsel to def.end the casd/ it : ·: . . .. :! I • ; . . i. . . ' I I ' all ·Jue is <~xped:ed[ th~t such tounsel iA to exercise< . ' fr }f .'_·; /{r. . [II ; '. .;;: :·.;•· ... . .. ' . : . :· ' . : .• diligence ancJ. industry pro(essionally in hanaling the case at . · .1 ) . : i ; .' I • I ! i I 11 I I I ' .. I I I .. .· .. / . ' • . '•" . . I !I,, . , , t/ ~~7.,,c!1 ., ~ ~ .. ': 1 ' ·,_ ·•,,l:•: .f .& '.:\ ;-, .,J ... · .• ..,.. 1.,;u ~1: ,. !'1:¥ •, •." ! .. .· ~,,_··_i_ • all 5.tag~s. ilf negligence I and m~stikes ~ri . the ·pl-': Iof~t ~;~~,}i~tir ~ ;'\ 11 f counsel were/a be taken ghtly, there ou(~ ~,e no ~-n_d(o ,.. ;_ ' . ,i ·: i litigation in Court as losing parties would seek to re-instate f ·.·. , cases out of time on grou~ds of nedtigence on the part! of

I I I I; I ',.J '. counsel. On t~e basis ot; this principle, t1e Courts h~ve ; take,n a 5!:!_ctr;ew_ on al/7ed ~ct5_ o+eg/ig~nce by c~unfet : .:' t , ; . ,; Ii ,' (Th~ Co~1..t1ere .fhen qu?tes~ with '!PP~~v~i/~e1c.~~~s1:or·~l~tn ': r1 . ' i i , • 1. , I l I• I· I t-.;, Henry Bh~rma~ a~d Bothers V. Santos~ ~Jff!ari w/o J. ,N. ii.;: J: ~-•·: : ::; I ,, t I ·1, , ., "· ,r · · Bhola (1961} E.A. 679; Kighoma Ali IMalimi v. Abbas Yusuf+ · t:' -~. i1 ~ ·• : · ·_, i: : • - I I I . .; Mwingamno Civil Application No. 5 bf 1987 (unreported): . Institute of Financ_e Manakement anh Simon· Manvaki, Civil ' -~ :. ~ Applicatio,y No. 1-! of 1967 (unrepoffed) a~d Mau/id Juma ·l . t:(·. -~' \ ,..'.-i v. A_· bdal1;,..1uma· ,- c;J1 App!icatJon Nd. :+}o ·of.F9~~:'lltf_i:;:·;-!;: : . :.i{l 1 '• " ' I .1 i ', 'f•.'. -l(-1,1~~;!' if • 1: ~; :; (unreported)) Referred to iri' Misc]Cr..Appl. 109/199t:('· •l~'.r:-Jp*~·!;;j '.\'.I (MJ.anzi rdgistl'}' - uni~portedJ.i ;. .· I I 1. ' I i I I I; ' . I I I That apart, the applicant aher withdrawin,g: instructions 'frohi\' i~ i , . . I I I : • • . counsel should have pursued the case a? ordered by the court: It is : t i~.: t~a~ '. wider· cqi:1~ext that I donsider lhe issu~ of· act~r1g .. '. . . . ,;•: . ,·1 . , t,.wit~ocyt:t / ~:· :\ I ( ., I l . k--1 l ' 1-- v., ,, . ' :' ' 'I . I '. ·_:11·o'rdi~at~ . 9ela_v.it~01 firid t~at i the ·:· P.plid1~~'s · in,a~i,?~.f

·1~f:~\'. ·, ~};.L :. i; .b . , ,-:' , ..... i.,.[ .. 'h. :k: ,.t.\.; d" •, J .,.:rft"1iJ .. _ r •. , 1. •,. · t:_e1I er3te CiSfSf;cra·._.01 ·-;: (:f;~CG.JSS~ty :•J'f1 :!i~·· iii~, · ISpGt~· uetwee~\~~;f J;r- ·:: \'' i' ..#:,.., .,__ __ 1,- ,.J .... I . ·J~rti~s resolved, ·it w~s recklesi at the ~ery least and no reasciQ~bi 1 I'. ,.;. I ' '. I I I . ' . ·, ·!' • • ·I tribunal would grant an. application in the background of this easel. ..:; , • .. ..:; . ' ;' . >.\~ ;.. ~;~it :.i: +}. :::;> I ..l ,. . ..- l f-•j' : ,, 1 ;ctf,J~_ -I •._, ... r::·~ ,...·~iu r~:j.) "_.J. i'"- ··f ·:':·:-, .•' ..'1·t·~ti"'. I i-. • • ' •M •·i- ·, .f'·I·· '':6.' .,.u Admittedly, the :other grot;md considered ,in granting .~u~~·t~n Hi:; :ff!l 1 ; ' . ·, • i ' .. :· :I. :.,i_:'-l • .' ~'·:k 1,,, " ~r J application is that: : r i, \, . :j '...I •·,, • •:. t ", ~ 01 _. r 1, ;· . ,,1., • t ' 1- ''-· 11 the loss or injury that an, applicant would be subjecte~to, ; 1. The loss had to be of an irreparable nature. which could not ~- · .}~ · ,:t ~-· '.?: ~ ·:F~~-: ·. 12 'i. l · ;.. -·.. 1,; . t.. .·.:) \ . ci) (/11:';·:;; ._';: [:_· ·: . ;:·: ·_-1 =-=-==...c~~--=-~~~',---i- ~ - , ~ - , ~ •' of dama §s·'' See/0~ CAT "•.•• ..:, •,:i)'.:-L,•i: ·::. >(• ,•, ; · •1•• : ;: ••••: .. in -~/~holas Nere Lekule Vs Indepen~ent P. lwer (T} Ltd'&._ \l\ifl\;~Ihi: · AnOther 1997 TLR 58, \ \ : · , · •. ,J ,i, . , .) I ! . I.

. . 1- .'::·'.·:.·..... · /·.:' t·- \·. 'j' r· ··' • ' ' I L ' .' . The issue for decision is whether the applicant has ~hown· that , . . ; he would suffer irreparable loss. . \ . \ I 1 . · · •. .:;::-. ;:· i: ·i · I ! ; ( . I I 1 ·:: • j , \ .' - ·t..:.i ·., ,. . •i ·. ! In···the·::applicant's affidavi~ in support of :this 'apbircJtio~r\lti~\~;:::; :·.·,-·. i . '> .r.· · - .1 : '..: . , . · I · I · ! . . · : .· ~ \ ':pleaded.; _in: iithe· . last,, paragraph that Irreparable loss ; woulq:_:,b~ ·_· ' . ~h:J.:sub~~siion was focused od~howing hieri~_of.th;e·:applic~tidn_·::fo_::~:_,·i\:i.. \ · . :, . I · .· j · ' · •.··1 : ·.. , · s~tting aside the· exparte award~ in the \event. extension to flle~.ith': _;:_. . , same was granted by the CMA. · \ \ ,. . . . · I i , I 1 •• I I . I . I I I ·.', :f . As to the issue of loss, the applicant submitted briefly that the! . l ; . . i decree holders would not be a~le to refund the monies ~eceived; in' : the event the decree is set aside afte~. exec'ution. The! applicants . •· though added in repl~ that it wduld be a~le if ~rdered.to ~ut :up•~hal~:; :;:, .•. ,,'. ' . ~ ,; ....' l . . ;{~r . ~. ; · as; securir;;. · •\ , . . . : ~ 11}0!;1..Qt~rt '?Sh .i' ~d C~:.C: •:C'.1e ~ ha If by. ;.:;:,...,.;;f rfgi ~tEF::::'., p: '.)~rttes;;;,,; . . . · ! ~ I .. , \ ·: i •• i· ; . ~ ·.r -~1y . . ,·. r ·: : :~': '. • • • '. : ; .. (•, , •::\' i :.·•. ,. ;'

' ' I I • •• \ .- • • ; •• ', :: '. l ' ,, · . ; · cbhsi~t: in9 :u hiStOr; · ~1 this caJe hole◊er,: r find iha{ ~i :. i-t •· . : I~ . I;, •· , j compelling re~sons e!<ists to moVe this co~rt to;grant.~~e applt~~ion} and it would not be. in the int!rest of 1ustice to deiiy the 'd@creef ;(, ·..· · holders· their valuable right per?istently \sought~ by prolqnging the'· ' 1· I : • I \ I . ' : ~ i i 13 i I I : \ . ·j. i \ _. I ., I ! I i i ·, \ ·... I t • I • • I :! ' I : '.7\_ t ~· ' '1' . ! . ·.t. r· :. · -·: t~{~; ;·;:~ ·; .. ' 14 .. ""i-~~- ,· ;J~,., .. ,i: "' 'j I ~ •.. !1j./