maxinsure tanzania ltd vs pan oceanic insurance brokers ltd 2020 tzhccomd 43 13 may 2020

maxinsure tanzania ltd vs pan oceanic insurance brokers ltd 2020 tzhccomd 43 13 may 2020

The application was fatally defective due to incorrect case title, improper party served, absence of affidavit, and lack of enabling provision; these defects go to the root and warrant striking out the application.

Citation
maxinsure tanzania ltd vs pan oceanic insurance brokers ltd 2020 tzhccomd 43 13 may 2020
Parties
Plaintiff/decree Holder: Maxinsure Tanzania Ltd; Defendant/judgment Debtor: Pan Oceanic Insurance Brokers Limited
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
13 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Case / Execution Application Ruling
Outcome
application struck out
Legal Topics
Execution of Decree, Corporate Veil, Affidavit Practice, Case Title Defect
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Execution of Decree Corporate Veil Affidavit Practice Case Title Defect

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maxinsure Tanzania Ltd

Plaintiff/decree Holder

Pan Oceanic Insurance Brokers Limited

Defendant/judgment Debtor

Procedural Posture

Commercial Case / Execution Application Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the execution application was properly before the court
  2. 2 Whether the notice to show cause was properly served
  3. 3 Whether the application was defective due to incorrect case title and amount claimed

Ratio Decidendi

The application was fatally defective due to incorrect case title, improper party served, absence of affidavit, and lack of enabling provision; these defects go to the root and warrant striking out the application.

Court Disposition

application struck out

Orders

  • application for execution is struck out