isa limited petrolube t limited vs bulyanhulu gold mine limited 17 others 2022 tzhccomd 195 29 july 2022
The injunctive order expired by operation of law after six months from issuance and was not extended; therefore, there was no subsisting order on 29/04/2017 against which contempt could be committed.
- Citation
- isa limited petrolube t limited vs bulyanhulu gold mine limited 17 others 2022 tzhccomd 195 29 july 2022
- Parties
- Applicant: ISA Limited; Applicant: Petrolube (T) Limited; Respondent: Bulyanhulu Gold Mine Limited; Respondent: North Mara Gold Mine Limited; Respondent: Pangea Minerals Limited; Respondent: Roelie Gey Von Pittius; Respondent: Michael K. Kakiziba; Respondent: Benedict Busunzu; Respondent: Duncan Mlaki; Respondent: Maarten Van Der Waalt; Respondent: Jacob Maritz; Respondent: Anton Lincoln; Respondent: Mark Siebly; Respondent: Graham Crew; Respondent: IA Peel; Respondent: Simon Kuta; Respondent: Eric Van Rooyen; Respondent: Samuel Roesler; Respondent: Manfred Hilderbrandt; Respondent: Steward Hamilton
- Court
- TZHCCOMD
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 29 July 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Commercial Application / Ruling on Application for Civil Contempt
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Injunctions, Contempt of Court, Validity of Court Orders
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
ISA Limited
Applicant
Petrolube (T) Limited
Applicant
Bulyanhulu Gold Mine Limited
Respondent
North Mara Gold Mine Limited
Respondent
Pangea Minerals Limited
Respondent
Roelie Gey Von Pittius
Respondent
Michael K. Kakiziba
Respondent
Benedict Busunzu
Respondent
Duncan Mlaki
Respondent
Maarten Van Der Waalt
Respondent
Jacob Maritz
Respondent
Anton Lincoln
Respondent
Mark Siebly
Respondent
Graham Crew
Respondent
IA Peel
Respondent
Simon Kuta
Respondent
Eric Van Rooyen
Respondent
Samuel Roesler
Respondent
Manfred Hilderbrandt
Respondent
Steward Hamilton
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Commercial Application / Ruling on Application for Civil Contempt
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Respondents were in contempt of court for breaching an injunctive order allegedly in force on 29/04/2017
Ratio Decidendi
The injunctive order expired by operation of law after six months from issuance and was not extended; therefore, there was no subsisting order on 29/04/2017 against which contempt could be committed.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment