19981120 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Citation
- 19981120 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 20 November 1998
- Posture
- Civil / Application for Leave to Amend Pleadings
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 20 November 1998
- Posture
- Civil / Application for Leave to Amend Pleadings
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
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. RweyemamuBhagawanji Sachdev
Respondent Counsel: Mr. MajithiaThe Shree Sanatan Dharima Shabra
Respondent Counsel: Mr. Majithia03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil / Application for Leave to Amend Pleadings
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether leave should be granted to amend pleadings
- 02
Whether removal and substitution of parties is permissible
- 03
Whether amendment causes injustice or injury to opposing party
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
Legal principles
- 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.
TZHC
Judgment· 20 November 1998
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 .....
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.