attorney general vs national housing corporation others 2019 tzhclandd 64 24 september 2019

attorney general vs national housing corporation others 2019 tzhclandd 64 24 september 2019

There was no order of attachment or sale of the 1st respondent's account or headquarters; the application was speculative and an abuse of court process. The eviction order against the 2nd respondent does not affect government ownership or interests, and there are no grounds to vacate the eviction order.

Citation
attorney general vs national housing corporation others 2019 tzhclandd 64 24 september 2019
Parties
Applicant: Attorney General; 1st Respondent: National Housing Corporation; 2nd Respondent: Lars Eric Hulstrom; 3rd Respondent: Manyoni Auctioneer; 4th Respondent: Jing Lang Li; 5th Respondent: Msolopa Investment Co. Ltd; 6th Respondent: Mwamvua Kigulu t/a Igalula Auction Mart
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
24 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Objection Proceedings
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Execution of Decrees, Government Property Immunity, Tenant Eviction, Abuse of Court Process
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Execution of Decrees Government Property Immunity Tenant Eviction Abuse of Court Process

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General

Applicant

National Housing Corporation

1st Respondent

Lars Eric Hulstrom

2nd Respondent

Manyoni Auctioneer

3rd Respondent

Jing Lang Li

4th Respondent

Msolopa Investment Co. Ltd

5th Respondent

Mwamvua Kigulu t/a Igalula Auction Mart

6th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Objection Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the eviction order issued in Execution No. 42 of 2017 should be stayed
  2. 2 Whether there was an order for attachment and sale of the 1st respondent's account and headquarters
  3. 3 Whether government property is immune from execution in this context

Ratio Decidendi

There was no order of attachment or sale of the 1st respondent's account or headquarters; the application was speculative and an abuse of court process. The eviction order against the 2nd respondent does not affect government ownership or interests, and there are no grounds to vacate the eviction order.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed