central security guards ltd vs ramadhani shomari and 97 others 2021 tzhcld 247 25 june 2021

central security guards ltd vs ramadhani shomari and 97 others 2021 tzhcld 247 25 june 2021

The Applicant was aware of the proceedings, was represented by counsel, and was granted leave to file a counter affidavit but failed to do so. The Deputy Registrar did not consider the late counter affidavit in his ruling. The Deputy Registrar had jurisdiction over the execution application, and there was no sufficient cause to set aside the default ruling. The application for revision lacks merit and is dismissed.

Citation
central security guards ltd vs ramadhani shomari and 97 others 2021 tzhcld 247 25 june 2021
Parties
Applicant: Central Security Guards Ltd; Respondents: Ramadhani Shomari and 97 Others
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
25 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Labour Revision Application / Judgment on Application for Revision of Deputy Registrar's Decision
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Setting Aside Ex Parte Orders, Jurisdiction of Deputy Registrar, Execution of Awards
Source Language
English
Labour Law Civil Procedure Default Judgment Setting Aside Ex Parte Orders Jurisdiction of Deputy Registrar Execution of Awards

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Central Security Guards Ltd

Applicant

Ramadhani Shomari and 97 Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Labour Revision Application / Judgment on Application for Revision of Deputy Registrar's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Deputy Registrar erred by allowing a counter affidavit filed out of time without leave of court
  2. 2 Whether the Deputy Registrar failed to consider all grounds raised by the Applicant in the application to set aside default ruling
  3. 3 Whether the Deputy Registrar had jurisdiction to determine issues relating to lifting of corporate veil in execution proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant was aware of the proceedings, was represented by counsel, and was granted leave to file a counter affidavit but failed to do so. The Deputy Registrar did not consider the late counter affidavit in his ruling. The Deputy Registrar had jurisdiction over the execution application, and there was no sufficient cause to set aside the default ruling. The application for revision lacks merit and is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs