harel mallac t ltd vs junaco t ltd another 2019 tzhccomd 157 2 september 2019

harel mallac t ltd vs junaco t ltd another 2019 tzhccomd 157 2 september 2019

The applicant failed to prove dishonesty or fraudulent conduct by the 2nd respondent and did not make sufficient efforts to identify properties of the judgment debtor. The application for lifting the corporate veil and arrest/detention of the 2nd respondent was premature and unsupported.

Citation
harel mallac t ltd vs junaco t ltd another 2019 tzhccomd 157 2 september 2019
Parties
Applicant/decree Holder: Harel Mallac Tanzania Limited; 1st Respondent/judgment Debtor: Junaco (T) Limited; 2nd Respondent/judgment Debtor: Justin Lambert
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
2 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Commercial Application / Ruling on Amended Application for Execution
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Execution of Decrees, Lifting Corporate Veil, Arrest and Detention of Judgment Debtor
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Company Law Execution of Decrees Lifting Corporate Veil Arrest and Detention of Judgment Debtor

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harel Mallac Tanzania Limited

Applicant/decree Holder

Junaco (T) Limited

1st Respondent/judgment Debtor

Justin Lambert

2nd Respondent/judgment Debtor

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Commercial Application / Ruling on Amended Application for Execution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the corporate veil should be lifted to allow arrest and detention of the 2nd respondent/judgment debtor
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd respondent acted dishonestly or fraudulently to frustrate execution of the decree
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has made sufficient efforts to identify properties of the judgment debtor

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to prove dishonesty or fraudulent conduct by the 2nd respondent and did not make sufficient efforts to identify properties of the judgment debtor. The application for lifting the corporate veil and arrest/detention of the 2nd respondent was premature and unsupported.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • application for lifting corporate veil, arrest and detention, and surrender of title deeds dismissed
  • costs awarded to respondents