fabec investment ltd vs mes international financial services another 2023 tzhccomd 27 15 february 2023

fabec investment ltd vs mes international financial services another 2023 tzhccomd 27 15 february 2023

The Applicant demonstrated, through affidavit and supporting evidence, that the Respondents intended to remove equipment from the jurisdiction, satisfying the conditions for attachment before judgment under Order XXXVI Rule 6. However, sale of the equipment was not warranted as the case is still pending and no decree has been issued.

Citation
fabec investment ltd vs mes international financial services another 2023 tzhccomd 27 15 february 2023
Parties
Applicant: Fabec Investment Limited; 1st Respondent: MES International Financial Services (PTY) Ltd; 2nd Respondent: MES Mine Services Tanzania Ltd
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
15 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Commercial Application / Ruling on Application for Attachment Before Judgment
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
Attachment Before Judgment, Security for Costs, Interim Relief
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Attachment Before Judgment Security for Costs Interim Relief

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

Parties

Fabec Investment Limited

Applicant

MES International Financial Services (PTY) Ltd

1st Respondent

MES Mine Services Tanzania Ltd

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Commercial Application / Ruling on Application for Attachment Before Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondents' equipment should be attached before judgment to prevent obstruction or delay of execution
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant has met the conditions for attachment before judgment under Order XXXVI Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant demonstrated, through affidavit and supporting evidence, that the Respondents intended to remove equipment from the jurisdiction, satisfying the conditions for attachment before judgment under Order XXXVI Rule 6. However, sale of the equipment was not warranted as the case is still pending and no decree has been issued.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • Respondents' equipment (Jaw-Crusher MES 001 PREMIERTRAK 4000X PIDPT40XPOMKB1648 and SCEEN Crusher MES-002 WARRIOR 1400X PID00133ED GL83286) is attached pending determination of Commercial Case No.07 of 2022.
  • Applicant to remove and secure the equipment at her own cost until final disposal of the main case.