daissy general traders and 3 others vs nk impex and another 2023 tzhc 23563 15 december 2023

daissy general traders and 3 others vs nk impex and another 2023 tzhc 23563 15 december 2023

The court held that the foreign status of the plaintiffs is not negated by granting power of attorney to a local company, as the agent does not assume the principal's liabilities. The application for security for costs is competent, and the affidavit is not defective as the statements are within the deponent's knowledge. The applicants established the legal grounds for security for costs under Order XXV Rule 1 of the CPC.

Citation
daissy general traders and 3 others vs nk impex and another 2023 tzhc 23563 15 december 2023
Parties
Applicant: DAISSY GENERAL TRADERS; Applicant: EPAK GENERAL TRADERS; Applicant: ANGELA CHARLES KIZIGHA; Applicant: ELVIS PETER KILINGO; Respondent: N.K IMPEX; Respondent: UNIQUE TEXTILES suing through Power of Attorney to GAKI INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
15 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application allowed in part
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Power of Attorney, Foreign Plaintiffs, Order XXV Rule 1 CPC
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Power of Attorney Foreign Plaintiffs Order XXV Rule 1 CPC

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DAISSY GENERAL TRADERS

Applicant

EPAK GENERAL TRADERS

Applicant

ANGELA CHARLES KIZIGHA

Applicant

ELVIS PETER KILINGO

Applicant

N.K IMPEX

Respondent

UNIQUE TEXTILES suing through Power of Attorney to GAKI INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for security for costs is competent under Order XXV Rule 1 of the CPC
  2. 2 Whether the grant of power of attorney to a local company by foreign plaintiffs negates the requirement for security for costs
  3. 3 Whether the affidavit in support of the application is defective for hearsay or blanket verification

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the foreign status of the plaintiffs is not negated by granting power of attorney to a local company, as the agent does not assume the principal's liabilities. The application for security for costs is competent, and the affidavit is not defective as the statements are within the deponent's knowledge. The applicants established the legal grounds for security for costs under Order XXV Rule 1 of the CPC.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part

Orders

  • Respondents to deposit USD 13,000 (TZS 30,000,000) as security for costs within one month in the court's designated account.
  • Failure to deposit will result in dismissal of the main suit as per Order XXV Rule 2(2) CPC.