enyati lodge limited vs kalist kwang and 7 others 2021 tzhc 7657 7 december 2021

enyati lodge limited vs kalist kwang and 7 others 2021 tzhc 7657 7 december 2021

The applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds for stay of execution, including failure to specify the magnitude of loss and repeated failure to prosecute applications, indicating abuse of process and delay tactics. The balance of convenience favors the respondents, who have been deprived of the fruits of their award since 2017.

Citation
enyati lodge limited vs kalist kwang and 7 others 2021 tzhc 7657 7 december 2021
Parties
Applicant: Enyati Lodge Limited; 1st Respondent: Kalist Kwang; 2nd Respondent: Zakaria C. Bura; 3rd Respondent: Jeremia Boay; 4th Respondent: Franko Charles; 5th Respondent: Martin Daniel; 6th Respondent: Paskali Stephano; 7th Respondent: John Deodatus; 8th Respondent: Manjo Sarwat
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
7 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Labour Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Extension of Time, Right to Be Heard, Delay Tactics
Source Language
English
Labour Law Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Extension of Time Right to Be Heard Delay Tactics

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Enyati Lodge Limited

Applicant

Kalist Kwang

1st Respondent

Zakaria C. Bura

2nd Respondent

Jeremia Boay

3rd Respondent

Franko Charles

4th Respondent

Martin Daniel

5th Respondent

Paskali Stephano

6th Respondent

John Deodatus

7th Respondent

Manjo Sarwat

8th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Labour Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sufficient grounds exist to grant a stay of execution pending determination of an application for extension of time at the CMA
  2. 2 Whether the applicant will suffer irreparable loss if stay is not granted
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favors the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds for stay of execution, including failure to specify the magnitude of loss and repeated failure to prosecute applications, indicating abuse of process and delay tactics. The balance of convenience favors the respondents, who have been deprived of the fruits of their award since 2017.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for stay of execution is dismissed
  • Costs awarded to the respondents