CIVIL APPLICATION NO 369 16 OF 2024 GAIMO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED VS MACLEO ELECTRICAL CONSTRACTORS LIMITED ANOTHER

CIVIL APPLICATION NO 369 16 OF 2024 GAIMO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED VS MACLEO ELECTRICAL CONSTRACTORS LIMITED ANOTHER

The application was filed out of time as the applicant was aware of the execution proceedings before the alleged date and failed to disclose this material fact, rendering the application incompetent under rule 11(4) of the Rules.

Citation
CIVIL APPLICATION NO 369 16 OF 2024 GAIMO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED VS MACLEO ELECTRICAL CONSTRACTORS LIMITED ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: GA1MO Construction Company Limited; 1st Respondent: Macleo Electrical Contractors Limited; 2nd Respondent: Mr. Manjale Fred Lusenga T/A Shashi Investment Limited
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
1 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution
Outcome
Application struck out with costs
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Time Limitation, Competence of Application
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Time Limitation Competence of Application

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GA1MO Construction Company Limited

Applicant

Macleo Electrical Contractors Limited

1st Respondent

Mr. Manjale Fred Lusenga T/A Shashi Investment Limited

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for stay of execution was filed within the prescribed time under rule 11(4) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009
  2. 2 Whether the application was competent in law

Ratio Decidendi

The application was filed out of time as the applicant was aware of the execution proceedings before the alleged date and failed to disclose this material fact, rendering the application incompetent under rule 11(4) of the Rules.

Court Disposition

Application struck out with costs

Orders

  • Application struck out
  • Applicant to pay costs