crdb bank plc others vs aziz mohamed aboud another 2016 tzhc 2201 18 february 2016

crdb bank plc others vs aziz mohamed aboud another 2016 tzhc 2201 18 february 2016

The present application is substantially identical to the previously withdrawn application. As no leave was sought or granted to re-institute the application at the time of withdrawal, Order XXIII Rule 1(3) precludes the applicants from filing a fresh application on the same subject matter. The preliminary objections are upheld and the application is struck out.

Citation
crdb bank plc others vs aziz mohamed aboud another 2016 tzhc 2201 18 february 2016
Parties
Applicant: CRDB Bank PLC; Applicant: Leonard Mususa (Receiver Manager of Morogoro Canvass Mills (1998) Ltd); Respondent: Aziz Mohamed Aboud; Respondent: Morogoro Canvass Mills (1998) Ltd
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
18 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Commercial Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objections
Outcome
Application struck out
Legal Topics
Withdrawal of Application, Leave to Re Institute, Costs, Temporary Injunction
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Withdrawal of Application Leave to Re Institute Costs Temporary Injunction

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CRDB Bank PLC

Applicant

Leonard Mususa (Receiver Manager of Morogoro Canvass Mills (1998) Ltd)

Applicant

Aziz Mohamed Aboud

Respondent

Morogoro Canvass Mills (1998) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Commercial Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objections

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the present application is precluded by Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of the Civil Procedure Code due to prior withdrawal without leave
  2. 2 Whether the present application is materially different from the previous withdrawn application
  3. 3 Entitlement to costs for withdrawn preliminary objection

Ratio Decidendi

The present application is substantially identical to the previously withdrawn application. As no leave was sought or granted to re-institute the application at the time of withdrawal, Order XXIII Rule 1(3) precludes the applicants from filing a fresh application on the same subject matter. The preliminary objections are upheld and the application is struck out.

Court Disposition

Application struck out

Orders

  • Application struck out for being precluded by Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of the Civil Procedure Code
  • Applicants condemned to pay respondents' costs, to be taxed