19980714 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Citation
- 19980714 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 14 July 1998
- Posture
- Civil / Ruling on Garnishee Objection
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 14 July 1998
- Posture
- Civil / Ruling on Garnishee Objection
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that the objection based solely on lack of privity of contract or locus standi is not sustainable in garnishee proceedings where statutory provisions allow investigation of claims by objectors with official authority.
Court disposition
Preliminary objection dismissed
Orders
- Proceed to investigate the objectors' claim as per Order XXI, Rule 57(1) CPC
02
Material facts
Parties
Tanzania National Mjimbo & Others
Plaintiffs/decree Holders Counsel: Mr. MujuliziState Travel Service Ltd
Defendant/judgment Debtor Counsel: Mr. SakaraTourism Services Tanzania
Objector/applicantPresidential Parastatal Sector Reform Commission
Objector/applicant03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil / Ruling on Garnishee Objection
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether objectors have locus standi to object to garnishee order
- 02
Whether privity of contract bars objectors' application
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Applicants/Objectors argued that as official receiver and by authority, they have standing to object to the garnishee order despite not being privy to the original contract.
- Respondent
- Respondent argued that there is no privity of contract between the objectors and the parties to the original transaction, thus objectors lack locus standi.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Order XXI, Rule 57(1) of the Civil Procedure Code
Privity of contract is not absolute in garnishee proceedings; locus standi can arise by virtue of statutory authority or official capacity.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that the objection based solely on lack of privity of contract or locus standi is not sustainable in garnishee proceedings where statutory provisions allow investigation of claims by objectors with official authority.
Obiter and limits
- The law on privity of contract or locus standi was intended to mitigate hardships and is not rigidly applicable in garnishee proceedings.
Court disposition
Preliminary objection dismissed
- Proceed to investigate the objectors' claim as per Order XXI, Rule 57(1) CPC
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 14 July 1998
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
TZHC
Judgment· 14 July 1998
TN TH'!~ lHGH COURT or TAN7,ANJ A {DAR RS SAiAAM DTSTRTCT REGTSTRY) CJVll, CASR NO. 296 OF .1997 ~A rl) MJHMBO & 01'HEHS ...•• PL!\ TN'rIFFS/DECREEBOI~DRH STATB TRAVRL SERVICE LTD ..... DEFRNDANT/JUDGEMRNT DEBTOR 1. 'l'OUH!SM SF.RVTCF.S TANZANJA) 2. PRESTi1BNTIAL PARASTATAi.. } . . . . . . . OR,JECTORS/APPLICANTS SRCTOR REFORM COMMISSION) RUf,ING the ,1 pp l. j <.:,1 t ion by I l t8 oh j Ac f 1,1 rs/ Appl i Crin t::-.: ( .TJ?. n.r:.XBl!l..BiP·_y) <~ei,; Tanzan i.8 [,tel and p_resjdf_ntj,2-J__)?~ra.statal Sector RefQn!! Commis:;;_io_n) to br.-tve A garnishee order issued against State Travel .Servi_ces, T.,l:d (or.igin;J] Defendant/,J~idgrnen.t debtor) :raised. Mr there is no pr iv .i. t y nf con tr.act in Urn t ran:::;;:u:: ti.on wld. ch 1. ook place hetw<:ien the only relevr:nit parties as exe3mplif ie<l hy the in l,3 1,v a:C:; it referred to m,31:ters of law and 11ot mat te:r::;; of fact. Tn tAply, Mr Mujulizi for th~ Applic~nts/Objectors ma.:i.ntAined U1at the question of 1ocu:; sla.ndi pE\ggAd on privity of ,·. J sa k a r , on c i. v i l P r- CH'. 1-:i <l u r P. ( R I II ·1 q q G J{ '-J p I i. 1ii , Vo J . l T , Ed i t i c11 , , !t .....( pagP- '.10:18) <Hi<l t:hAt it, any c;:i:~P. t h e , _ ~ : ; objector {PSRC) afiS;l,'- 1h;.i1·. pos:il·i.on hy vh·tui-! of h(➔ i11g ,1n nffiJ:jr1l. rc.:icr~ivAr of Stal A trr-1v1'lJ S(~J'.'\d<::P.;::.; Lt.<1 wh:i.cl·1 by u-_p: (PSRC:)
-~1.1thority Wi-lf', ::..:ol(l to the 1st objec.'.tn:r. that I lii:> pre] .i.nd.ncitY object:i.on;:_; sJiuuld bA <1.i;:::ndsi->P.<l. con Cf~1- n i nu -i 11 e q u es t i on o f pr .i. vi t y o f cont r ,3 c t: o r· locus ~ t and i J s Ji o 111 d :i n.t:enllec.1 1:o 111':' 1;_,i;:~te, among 0U1P.rs, I he Ji;-w.i.s of hit.; an;_iumP.rd: --- privity of contract. It was specjfJcally enacteJ to take carA of intet:P.sts of parU es who are not privy to the contra.ct but wl-10 l • " // ,,i' r.on,I·1·FJ<'.I H nr to. O.XXT, Rule 57(1) C:PC, is Vf:;ly cler11ly W01(1ed, attacJ·11ne11t w)v1.t the court j_s s11pposed to do is t:o procee<l to invest.i~ale the m;,tter - of course the objector/claimant, hAving Th A HU J P C ) A ,3. r 1 y f> 1i OW S 1 h ,➔. t U l A l I l.l r<1l ,~ of "vrj vj 1.y of C(>lrl::n-icL nr locus st.And il' was r:invj :-;agi?.d touncl l: o 4 .· aur.11n, with RulP.: ](1) nf n.XTX, r:pr: p:rc1vi_rles, ,;i],1 1 ') l /, fit wlli-it.. nnA can r.iyht1y c,d1 1i1Fi_t1ers of fi-ic:1s. ThP. J:.--1w ;:;rA 1hosH cont,3_i_1iing ;::;t;::i_tAn,ents .reg::nding thA enr-ictn1Pnts of P x <: 1 l l <h~ <l fr l.l Iii ..-1 f r i d ,, v i I. H . thP.n just AJgu1nAnlF1ti.VA points )Jl_ll. .. , ,. l ', s 14/7/98 _.,
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.