erythia trading co ltd vs tanzania bureau of standards and another 2020 tzhccomd 12 27 march 2020

erythia trading co ltd vs tanzania bureau of standards and another 2020 tzhccomd 12 27 march 2020

The 1st defendant's refusal to allow re-export of the consignment was not arbitrary, unfair, or unlawful because the goods were found unfit for human consumption, the 1st defendant acted within its statutory mandate, and the law provided for destruction or re-export at the Bureau's discretion. The plaintiff failed to prove the refusal was unjustified or contrary to law.

Citation
erythia trading co ltd vs tanzania bureau of standards and another 2020 tzhccomd 12 27 march 2020
Parties
Plaintiff: Erythia Trading Company Limited; 1st Defendant: Tanzania Bureau of Standards; 2nd Defendant: The Honourable Attorney General
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
27 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Case / Judgment
Outcome
Suit dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Import Regulation, Standards Compliance, Administrative Discretion, Public Health, Damages, Judicial Review
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Commercial Law Regulatory Law Import Regulation Standards Compliance Administrative Discretion Public Health Damages +1 more

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Erythia Trading Company Limited

Plaintiff

Tanzania Bureau of Standards

1st Defendant

The Honourable Attorney General

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Case / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st defendant's refusal to allow the plaintiff to re-export two containers of fish imported from China was arbitrary, unfair and unlawful.
  2. 2 What reliefs the parties are entitled to.

Ratio Decidendi

The 1st defendant's refusal to allow re-export of the consignment was not arbitrary, unfair, or unlawful because the goods were found unfit for human consumption, the 1st defendant acted within its statutory mandate, and the law provided for destruction or re-export at the Bureau's discretion. The plaintiff failed to prove the refusal was unjustified or contrary to law.

Court Disposition

Suit dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's suit is dismissed with costs.