i m bank t limited vs herbert elizer liwali another 2022 tzhccomd 298 22 september 2022

i m bank t limited vs herbert elizer liwali another 2022 tzhccomd 298 22 september 2022

The Applicant failed to prove that the orders in Misc. Commercial Application No. 110 of 2021 were obtained by fraud or deliberate concealment by the Respondents. The duty to disclose the assignment of rental proceeds lay with the 2nd Respondent, not the 1st Respondent. Silence alone does not amount to fraud in the absence of a legal duty to disclose. The injunctive orders were properly granted to preserve assets pending enforcement of the arbitral award, and the Applicant, not being a party to the proceedings, cannot claim the orders were tainted by fraud or that its right to be heard was violated.

Citation
i m bank t limited vs herbert elizer liwali another 2022 tzhccomd 298 22 september 2022
Parties
Applicant: I &M Bank (T) Limited; 1st Respondent: Hebert Eliezer Liwali; 2nd Respondent: Bayview Properties Limited
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
22 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Commercial Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside/vacate Injunctive Orders
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Injunctive Relief, Fraudulent Concealment, Assignment of Receivables, Natural Justice, Enforcement of Arbitral Awards
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Arbitration Injunctive Relief Fraudulent Concealment Assignment of Receivables Natural Justice Enforcement of Arbitral Awards

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

Parties

I &M Bank (T) Limited

Applicant

Hebert Eliezer Liwali

1st Respondent

Bayview Properties Limited

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Commercial Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside/vacate Injunctive Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the orders issued in Misc. Commercial Application No. 110 of 2021 were fraudulently obtained and should be set aside or vacated
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant was entitled to be heard or had an interest affected by the orders
  3. 3 Whether there was a duty of disclosure by the Respondents regarding the assignment of rental proceeds

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant failed to prove that the orders in Misc. Commercial Application No. 110 of 2021 were obtained by fraud or deliberate concealment by the Respondents. The duty to disclose the assignment of rental proceeds lay with the 2nd Respondent, not the 1st Respondent. Silence alone does not amount to fraud in the absence of a legal duty to disclose. The injunctive orders were properly granted to preserve assets pending enforcement of the arbitral award, and the Applicant, not being a party to the proceedings, cannot claim the orders were tainted by fraud or that its right to be heard was violated.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The present application is denied and dismissed.
  • Costs to follow the event.