leonida hartsuiker vs jackson mwasanga 2 others 2011 tzhccomd 2029 29 june 2011

leonida hartsuiker vs jackson mwasanga 2 others 2011 tzhccomd 2029 29 june 2011

At the time of the attachment, the disputed property was neither owned nor possessed by the judgment debtor but had already been sold to the applicant/objector, who was in actual possession and had fulfilled all obligations of ownership. Therefore, the property was not liable to attachment and must be released.

Citation
leonida hartsuiker vs jackson mwasanga 2 others 2011 tzhccomd 2029 29 june 2011
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Leonida Hartsuiker; 1st Defendant/respondent: Jackson Mwasanga; 2nd Defendant/respondent: Mrs. Irene Jackson Mwasanga; 3rd Respondent: Unyangala Auction Mart & Court Broker; Applicant/objector: Godwin R. Bubelwa
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
29 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Objection to Execution Proceedings / Ruling on Objection to Attachment
Outcome
application allowed
Legal Topics
Attachment of Property, Investigation of Claims to Attached Property, Ownership and Title, Execution Proceedings
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Property Law Execution of Judgments Attachment of Property Investigation of Claims to Attached Property Ownership and Title Execution Proceedings

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

Parties

Leonida Hartsuiker

Plaintiff/respondent

Jackson Mwasanga

1st Defendant/respondent

Mrs. Irene Jackson Mwasanga

2nd Defendant/respondent

Unyangala Auction Mart & Court Broker

3rd Respondent

Godwin R. Bubelwa

Applicant/objector

Procedural Posture

Objection to Execution Proceedings / Ruling on Objection to Attachment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the attached property (Plot No. 814 CT No. 39908 at Mkuza Village, Kibaha District) belonged to the judgment debtor at the time of attachment and was thus liable to attachment.

Ratio Decidendi

At the time of the attachment, the disputed property was neither owned nor possessed by the judgment debtor but had already been sold to the applicant/objector, who was in actual possession and had fulfilled all obligations of ownership. Therefore, the property was not liable to attachment and must be released.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • Warrant of attachment is raised/lifted.
  • The disputed property (Plot No. 814 CT No. 39908 at Mkuza Village, Kibaha District, Coast Region) is released from attachment.