auto mech ltd vs tib development bank ltd and others 2020 tzhclandd 80 14 april 2020

auto mech ltd vs tib development bank ltd and others 2020 tzhclandd 80 14 april 2020

Section 2(3) of JALA can be cited as a statutory link for received law, and the existence of relevant substance is a factual question; the application is not barred by Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC as the cause of action and reliefs differ from the previous application; the affidavit is defective only in part, but the defects do not vitiate the whole; the applicant has established a prima facie case and irreparable loss only to the extent of accessing official documents for settling employment claims, but not for broader reliefs; balance of convenience favors limited access under supervision.

Citation
auto mech ltd vs tib development bank ltd and others 2020 tzhclandd 80 14 april 2020
Parties
Applicant: Auto Mech Limited; 1st Respondent: TIB Development Bank Limited; 2nd Respondent: YONO Auction Mart & Co. Ltd.; 3rd Respondent: Faraj Asas; 4th Respondent: The Attorneys General Chambers
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
14 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Application for Temporary Injunction and Preliminary Objections
Outcome
Application partly succeeds
Legal Topics
Temporary Injunction, Mareva Injunction, Mortgage Enforcement, Affidavit Defects, Preliminary Objection, Access to Property, Employment Claims
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Equity Temporary Injunction Mareva Injunction Mortgage Enforcement Affidavit Defects Preliminary Objection +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Auto Mech Limited

Applicant

TIB Development Bank Limited

1st Respondent

YONO Auction Mart & Co. Ltd.

2nd Respondent

Faraj Asas

3rd Respondent

The Attorneys General Chambers

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Application for Temporary Injunction and Preliminary Objections

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application is barred by Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of the CPC due to previous withdrawal without liberty to refile
  2. 2 Whether section 2(3) of the Judicature and Application of Laws Act (JALA) alone can move the court for a temporary injunction
  3. 3 Whether the supporting affidavit is defective for being argumentative or for attestation defects

Ratio Decidendi

Section 2(3) of JALA can be cited as a statutory link for received law, and the existence of relevant substance is a factual question; the application is not barred by Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC as the cause of action and reliefs differ from the previous application; the affidavit is defective only in part, but the defects do not vitiate the whole; the applicant has established a prima facie case and irreparable loss only to the extent of accessing official documents for settling employment claims, but not for broader reliefs; balance of convenience favors limited access under supervision.

Court Disposition

Application partly succeeds

Orders

  • Applicant granted 14 days access to the suit property solely to collect official documents for settling claims of terminated employees.
  • Collected documents shall not include any document of title of any movable property or documents envisaged in item -a- of the Security clause in the credit facility agreement (TIB-2).