19900125 TZHC Dar es Salaam
The averments in the amended plaint did not constitute fraud in law, but in the interest of justice and to avoid multiplicity of suits, the plaintiff was granted leave to further amend the amended plaint.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19900125 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Parties
- Plaintiff: International Agricultural Products and Export Limited; 1st Defendant: J.S. Limited; 2nd Defendant: Samal Thomas Limited
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 25 January 1990
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Interlocutory Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Amendment Application
- Outcome
- Plaintiff granted leave to amend the amended plaint; costs to follow the event.
- Legal Topics
- Pleading Amendment, Fraud, Preliminary Objection
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
International Agricultural Products and Export Limited
Plaintiff
J.S. Limited
1st Defendant
Samal Thomas Limited
2nd Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Amendment Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the amended plaint discloses a cause of action based on fraud
- 2 Whether the plaintiff should be allowed to further amend the amended plaint
Ratio Decidendi
The averments in the amended plaint did not constitute fraud in law, but in the interest of justice and to avoid multiplicity of suits, the plaintiff was granted leave to further amend the amended plaint.
Court Disposition
Plaintiff granted leave to amend the amended plaint; costs to follow the event.
Orders
- Plaintiff allowed to amend the amended plaint.
- Mention set for 17th February 1990.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
• IN TliL rllGH COURT CF TJ.Jll~h~l.ii. hT DAR LS SALfU,.M ClV"rJJ Ch.&E Nv. 153 vF 198G INT.c;RNi1.'l'lvh.i..L AGi<IGULTRllL PRODUCT~ ~~D J:!.X.1-U<T .LlkIT.ii,Jl•••••••••• o•••o••·······FLAINTIFF vers·us l. J. S. l.l11IT~l> 2. SA.~.hlt. 'l'!tttw.i:.l\S LTI.i. i)I· ..... O o • .- e o o • • 0 • _· DEFENDANTS }.. ~hNCON !.!Ul:k,h .liULlNG RUBat--m I J: ~uoting E.a. Timber Co1 v. lnder bingh·Gill (1959) Ek 463. 4G9 an4 tt. hllarakaia J"anmohamed ~ Co. v. _zet~halal .Valaldas ~ • ,(1958) l:.A :~19, . . . \ . Jr,r. a1.tha.tb.a, learned counsel for the 1st defendant submitted that there -was no ·cause of action on fraud disclosed by the amended Plaint_. Dr- l.a.mwai, learned ·counsel ,for the plaintiff -went over the amended ~lai~ · and maintained t.ha.t for _the purposes of pleading, cause of action haa.ed · on -fraud.had been cle~rly shown. 0n examination of the Amended Plaint and the. submissions of the oounsels I am of the opinion that the pre• -liminary objection raised by Mr. Raithatha is well founded. What is avered in parat;;raphs 9-anc·io of the Amended plaint does not, in-law, constitute fraud. Mr • .l{ait~tha .called upon ·the cour,t to r~jeet the .Amended Pla;int .in,conformity with CJ.? r. 11 of the Civil Procedur;e Code. l)r • . La:m111ai on the other hand askv-Q. t ~-e 1;,ourt to allow the· amendmeat of the ~11e,i-de-a' Plaint, particul~rly p&Ngraph 9. Bearing in mind the fact$ alleg~d in the .suneno.ed l?ll::\int, th,, submissions of the .co~el.S need \o ayo~d · multiplicity of suits in ~i~w of 0.7 r.134C~nd the possible appli,e~~~ · of the la-w of limiu.tion·to tne conflict, 1 gran,t :Ur. Lamwai's pr&yfr. ·.to be allowed to amend the .11.mended.Plaint. I accoro.ingly .~llov the . .t'laintiff to amend· th~ k".rieniied Pl.Q.i.nt. Cos ts •to f oJ.low . the ev~sa~ • \, .•- ,, ~ -.. •\."\,_ :¼_\)Q._'-~ ,) YA.HYk .Rl l ~ JU!JGE 25/1/1990 25/1/1990 ~oram: ~~b~ma, J. Mr. Marando/~r. L8 mwai for Plaintiff Mr. Marando/Mr. h~ithatha for 1st defendant Mr. Marando/Mr. Mwaj~sho for 2nd defendant. kuling ue·livered • .... 25/1/1990 Order: - Mention 17th }"ebaru~ry,1 1990 l.i11.k l!ib SALAAM. 23th January, 1990.