david mtitu and others vs tib development bank ltd 2020 tzhc 1294 11 june 2020

david mtitu and others vs tib development bank ltd 2020 tzhc 1294 11 june 2020

The application is misconceived as the relief sought is tortious in nature and requires a substantive suit, not a miscellaneous application. The court is functus officio regarding the original civil case, and the cited provisions do not properly move the court to grant the orders sought.

Citation
david mtitu and others vs tib development bank ltd 2020 tzhc 1294 11 june 2020
Parties
Applicant: David Mtitu; Applicant: Mary Chonge Mwankemwa; Applicant: Samweli Kaani Mtali; Applicant: Julieth Ndyetabura; Applicant: Anthony Yohana Lengana; Respondent: TIB Development Bank Limited
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
11 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Defamation, Injunctions, Jurisdiction, Functus Officio
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Tort Law Defamation Injunctions Jurisdiction Functus Officio

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Mtitu

Applicant

Mary Chonge Mwankemwa

Applicant

Samweli Kaani Mtali

Applicant

Julieth Ndyetabura

Applicant

Anthony Yohana Lengana

Applicant

TIB Development Bank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Civil Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for restraining orders and investigation of alleged defamation is properly before the court
  2. 2 Whether the court is functus officio regarding Civil Case No. 153 of 2004
  3. 3 Whether the relief sought should be by substantive suit or application

Ratio Decidendi

The application is misconceived as the relief sought is tortious in nature and requires a substantive suit, not a miscellaneous application. The court is functus officio regarding the original civil case, and the cited provisions do not properly move the court to grant the orders sought.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application dismissed as misconceived
  • Applicants to pay costs