INSIGNIA LTD VS CMA CGM T LTD MISC
The application was dismissed because the order sought to be appealed against was interlocutory and did not finally determine the suit, thus no right of appeal existed and the court lacked jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- INSIGNIA LTD VS CMA CGM T LTD MISC
- Parties
- Applicant: Insignia Limited; Respondent: CMA CGM (Tanzania) Limited
- Court
- TANZLII
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 1 January 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Commercial Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal
- Outcome
- Application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Orders, Right of Appeal, Jurisdiction
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Insignia Limited
Applicant
CMA CGM (Tanzania) Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Commercial Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the order appealed against is interlocutory and thus not appealable under section 5(2)(d) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act
- 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal where no right of appeal exists
Ratio Decidendi
The application was dismissed because the order sought to be appealed against was interlocutory and did not finally determine the suit, thus no right of appeal existed and the court lacked jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed with costs
Orders
- Application dismissed for being misconceived
- Applicant to pay costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (COMERCIAL DIVISION) AT PAR ES SALAAM MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL APPLICATION NO 241 OF 2018 (Arising from Commercial Case No. 36 of 2016) INSIGNIA LIMITED................................................................. APPLICANT VERSUS CMA CGM (Tanzania) LIMITED.............................................. RESPONDENT RULING MWANDAMBO J Upon examination of the Chamber summons, the ruling of this Court made on 12/10/2018 and oral arguments made before me, I am more than satisfied that the said decision did not finally and conclusively determine the suit in Commercial Case No. 36 of 2016. That order is caught up by section 5 (2) (d) of Appellate Jurisdiction Act Cap 141 [R.E 2002] which bars appeals from interlocutory decisions which have no effect of finally and conclusively determine the suit. As stated by the Court of Appeal in East African Development Bank V. Khalfan Transport Co. Ltd, CAT Civil Appeal No.68 of 2003 (unreported) S.5(l) (c) of Cap.141 is predicated upon existence of a right of appeal under any written law and that since such right has been expressly excluded, S.5 (1) (c) of Cap. 141 cannot be brought into play. That being so, there will be no jurisdictional basis to determine an application for leave to appeal when no such right exists in the first place (see also: Philemon Mgaya & 4 Others V. Dr. Gideon Kaunda & 6 others, HC (DSM) Misc. Civil Application No.574/2014 (unreported). In the event, the submission by Mr. Rweyemamu learned Advocate for the Applicant are found to be legally untenable and rejected accordingly. That said, I 1 dismiss the application for being misconceived and I do so with costs. Order 2