Tanzania Judgment

TZHC

19981120 TZHC Dar es Salaam

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

There are sufficient grounds to allow the amendment as no evidence was presented that it would cause irreparable injury or injustice to the opposing party, and objections to the form of the supporting affidavit are unfounded.

Court disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • leave granted to amend pleadings
  • costs to follow the suit

02

Material facts

Parties

Harishanker S. Joshi

Applicant Counsel: Mr. Rweyemamu

Bhagawanji Sachdev

Respondent Counsel: Mr. Majithia

The Shree Sanatan Dharima Shabra

Respondent Counsel: Mr. Majithia

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil / Application for Leave to Amend Pleadings

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant seeks leave to amend the pleadings, including dropping the current second defendant and introducing new parties, supported by affidavit. No evidence of injury or injustice to the opposing party that cannot be compensated by costs.
Respondent
The respondent opposes the application, arguing that amendment may take away accrued legal rights. The second respondent has no objection to removal. Concerns raised about form and content of amendments and the supporting affidavit.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Order XIX rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code

    Amendments to pleadings should be allowed unless they cause injustice or injury to the opposing party that cannot be compensated by costs.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

There are sufficient grounds to allow the amendment as no evidence was presented that it would cause irreparable injury or injustice to the opposing party, and objections to the form of the supporting affidavit are unfounded.

Obiter and limits

  • Issues relating to the form and content of amendments may be premature unless new causes of action are introduced and the respondent is denied the right to file an amended written defence.

Court disposition

application allowed

  • leave granted to amend pleadings
  • costs to follow the suit

Source and reliance status

TZHC · 20 November 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.

Source document

TZHC

Judgment· 20 November 1998

19981120 TZHC Dar es Salaam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIJ\ DAR ES SALAA~1l Dis~rRICT REGISTRY AT DAR 23 SALAAM CIVIL CASE N0 0 306 OF 1995 HARISHANKER S. JOSHI ••••••••••.•• ·•• •. AFPLICANT

VERSUS ( 1) BHAGAWANJI SACHDEV I ( 2) THE SHREE SANAI'AN ~ ••••••••• REsPONDENT DHARIMA SHABR4 I

I

RULING MACKANJ A,· J: In this application the plaintiff has moved the court to grant him leave to amend his pleading. ·rf his prayers are granted the in~ended the names of the current second defendant -~vill be dropped and a set of new ones will be intr0duced. In addition, the plaint itself will undergo an ~xtensive amendmento The application is supported by the affidavit of Harishanker Savji Joshi, the plaintiff/applicant. The defendant opposes the application and has offerred evidence in the form of the affidavit of Priyavadan Madhavji Majithia, learned counsel for the second defendant. Although the opposition appr:ars to be fairly spirited, the evidence for the d~fenoe states categorically that the second defE.t1dant,, who is to be replaced., has.• no objection to the removal _of its _name from the suit. What remains of the oppo:sition, therefore, boils down purely to acaclmic consideratipns. Learned. counsel have argued about the merits and derneri ts of the application.· No one has come out with· evidence that that if allowed the amend:nent will cause •· ...... /2 2 an injury or injustice to the opposing ·party that will not be adequately compensated by costs. Mr:: .. Maji thia submits that the amend!I'e.nt, if made, will take away from the respondents legal rights which have accrued to them. Well., the second respondent cannot • complain because it no longer ,vill be a

party if the 1 amendment is allo·wed.. As to the first respondEint issues relating to the form and content; of the amendments may seem pre-mature unless causes of action are introduced and the respondent was denied his right to file an amended written defence. 'I'he respondent will not ' be denied an opportunity to traverse the am~nded pleading. Over all I am satisfied that there are,s~fficient grounds upon which the application should succeed. Objections have been raised concerning the form of the affidavit supporting the application. After having heard learned caunsel and after having examined the said af:t;idavit, I can find nothing that contravenes Order XlX _rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code. In tbe result the application is all-owed and the prayers granted. Costs to follow the suit. Sgd~ Delivered J.M. MACK.ANJA

JUGGE 20./11/98 Mr. Rweyemamu, Advocate for the Applicant/Plaintiff Mr. Majithia, Advocate - For Respondent/Defendant I hereby certify this to be tru;:: copy of the Original o .....

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Order XIX rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.