exim bank t ltd vs johan harld christer abrahmsson 2020 tzca 1 15 january 2020

exim bank t ltd vs johan harld christer abrahmsson 2020 tzca 1 15 january 2020

The Court held that the single Justice properly exercised discretion in granting extension of time based on the ground of illegality, and that parties were not denied the right to be heard as they had opportunity to address the issue in written submissions. The application for reference was found to be unmerited and dismissed.

Citation
exim bank t ltd vs johan harld christer abrahmsson 2020 tzca 1 15 january 2020
Parties
Applicant: Exim Bank (Tanzania) Limited; 1st Respondent: Johan Harald Christer Abrahmsson; 2nd Respondent: Dascar Limited; 3rd Respondent: MAS & Associates Company Ltd; 4th Respondent: Yusuph Shaban Matimbwa
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
15 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Reference / Ruling on Reference From Single Justice's Decision Granting Extension of Time
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Illegality as Ground for Extension, Right to Be Heard, Execution Proceedings, Judicial Discretion
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Banking Law Execution of Judgments Extension of Time Illegality as Ground for Extension Right to Be Heard Execution Proceedings Judicial Discretion

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Exim Bank (Tanzania) Limited

Applicant

Johan Harald Christer Abrahmsson

1st Respondent

Dascar Limited

2nd Respondent

MAS & Associates Company Ltd

3rd Respondent

Yusuph Shaban Matimbwa

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Reference / Ruling on Reference From Single Justice's Decision Granting Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the single Justice erred in granting extension of time based on illegality
  2. 2 Whether parties were denied the right to be heard on the issue of illegality
  3. 3 Whether the applicant accounted for the delay

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the single Justice properly exercised discretion in granting extension of time based on the ground of illegality, and that parties were not denied the right to be heard as they had opportunity to address the issue in written submissions. The application for reference was found to be unmerited and dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed