tahfif mini super market vs b p tanzania ltd 1992 tzhc 62 11 may 1992

m T M U g P BSPUHLIC CP flaWEAim IN SHE HIGH CCUET OP W.TOrTm AT LflB ES S/'T,Aam CIVIL CASE HO* 107 OP 1991 t xm n m salem asaxrao nr m ie m name jaro s t i k cp iahfip muti s e n s .w a sm . . PIulBTTIPP versus B. P , fflUJ&BIA. LIMITED . . . . numn/uiT B U L I F Gt ro a m . j. ~_j— SiIt,M t e 'tU4le * * « “ « * a none and stylo of E m i r KDIX a n t e HSflpjr i B sui„t D* p. i s m i n i ^ ^ t0 llEd on 1at 1 1 1 4 0 ° a ° S ° U O r 1 1 0 0 ,1 0 0 A a T O O “ n ‘ : * * * * % f O T (1 ) A d o o W o r y o r to tla t thoro ls m TObslBtll)G ^ oscllor Lioonco Acroonaat to wcacrant tornim tion o f the orrfccpcd Scsollor Liconoo ^ o o n o irt, {11) tho ortorod into Hosollor iioonoo Aerconont ^ oaln 1„ foroo trafcil thoro avisos a Taroadi| (lii) costs o f the suit and dv) oficfc o th oran d teth or » U o f M this oourt ony a o « JUBt anfl ixcopcr, ^ ®° ^ ^ cn r . K l i ^ o n - « (K _< I 0114 5 Sootlo“ 95 Of tho C iv * Sfccodm-o Cocto, 9 praying fo r tho £ollcwixig ordors* (i) aonparmy ardor of Injunction neninst B.P. Linitod fern sum crily tominr.tinc tho Eosollor. Lioonoo iBtooowrt.o at V * 0 ° onfarfcxrlrc in my iray tho norrnl conduct of tl^c ’jusiroea « Sop tho ontorod Hosollor Iioonoo Jlcroomnt until dotorr tL tim . o f tho suit "botwoon tho parties, (ii) ' that costs o f tho application follow tho incidonco o f ttd naik suit and, (111) aucfc othor r o lio f or roliote thr.t tho oourt nny Soon just and 2? opar* l!ho application is supported by tho affidavit of 011231 S/ilHM,* the ' Cfonaral Manager of B*P# University PotrdLSItation and Trhfif wirH Supi Morkot and brothor of EBRAIIIM SAKJM and opposod by a Counter Affidavit .of ^BianTQcf M* KAJUKA,..Assistant Hptail •Manager of tlio rospondont# JHxrthor to tlio affidavit of OMARI SAUJMj tho applicant in support of its application filed a nonjoinder to tho Countor Affidavit by m^Trra satxtm whieih in turn is challongod by tho rospondont* s Reply to ‘tho Rojoindor to tho Courrtor Affidavit. This was sworn by MIQUTOU M# KAJtJlTA* te*. Mtrajasho locxnod advocato for tho applicant and Mr. Mkatto, loomed advocato for tho rospondont oleboratod on their positions * They wore cxtonsivo, dotailod end of oxtrono usefulness to tho court# I do not, howo-rof, intond to go into thonj they groatly go into tho norits of tlio nrd^ suit whoso dotcrnination would have to wait tho fim liaation of tho pleadings and naturally the hearing of tho oaso# To go doop into tho advancod conflicting submissions would by and largo aaount to profudging tho oaso. Yot I havo to nalx a ruling on tho application# In tho li$ it of tho natorial boforo no^ I find nysolf unablo to grant tho applicat ion by tho applicant# I t is accordingly disniseod with oosts# yahya mam. • flJEGE 24/4/1992 In ° f tho urgonoy o f tho caso, i t is lioroby fjbcod fo r hoaring * boforo KYAItDC, J# on 12th May, 1S02# YAHYA 3m«|Ll JCJDGE it M . 4/ 9? 9 *wn. Coroot Bubana, J. Mr# Mw?„jasho fo r tho applicant For., rospondont Mr# Mkattc Ruling dolivorcd# yahya ML JU3X5E 24/ 4/1992 ME« jflcattoi I havo not tllo d Tfritton atatononfc of Dofonoo. Mcy I filo i t by y y 1992. Ccwrt* Bofonoo to filo Written Statonont of Dofonoo by 5/^1992* 2op3y i f any by 11/5/1992* Hbnrine 11/ 5/1992 toforo Ktfvndo, Ju^co nHYA laXBAIf JUDGE 2VV1992