neco data ltd vs t revenue authority 3 others 2006 tzhccomd 61 28 august 2006

neco data ltd vs t revenue authority 3 others 2006 tzhccomd 61 28 august 2006

The applicant demonstrated a prima facie case and risk of irreparable injury if denied access to the project, which could not be compensated by damages. The balance of convenience favored granting the injunction to prevent greater hardship to the applicant.

Citation
neco data ltd vs t revenue authority 3 others 2006 tzhccomd 61 28 august 2006
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: NECO DATA LIMITED; 1st Defendant/respondent: TANZANIA REVENUE AUTHORITY; 2nd Defendant/applicant: NICO (ZAMBIA) LTD; 3rd Defendant/respondent: ALFRED ADAM LYIMO; 4th Defendant/respondent: NECO ZAMBIA LTD
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
28 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Commercial Case / Ruling on Application for Interim Injunction
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Joint Venture Disputes, Contractual Obligations, Access to Project Sites
Source Language
English
Commercial Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Interim Injunctions Joint Venture Disputes Contractual Obligations Access to Project Sites

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NECO DATA LIMITED

Plaintiff/respondent

TANZANIA REVENUE AUTHORITY

1st Defendant/respondent

NICO (ZAMBIA) LTD

2nd Defendant/applicant

ALFRED ADAM LYIMO

3rd Defendant/respondent

NECO ZAMBIA LTD

4th Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Case / Ruling on Application for Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interim injunction restraining the plaintiff/respondent from denying access to project premises and interfering with contract execution

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant demonstrated a prima facie case and risk of irreparable injury if denied access to the project, which could not be compensated by damages. The balance of convenience favored granting the injunction to prevent greater hardship to the applicant.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Interim injunction granted restraining the plaintiff/respondent and its agents from denying entrance, blocking, prohibiting, restraining, threatening, harassing, evicting or interfering with the applicant and its agents from accessing premises, machinery, technology or documents related to the project until final...
  • Each party to bear its own costs of the application.