john paul shibuda others vs nordox industries 2015 tzca 359 23 december 2015

john paul shibuda others vs nordox industries 2015 tzca 359 23 december 2015

The application was struck out because the applicants failed to cite the specific and relevant procedural rule (Rule 120(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules) governing applications for security for costs, instead citing an inapplicable general rule. This omission is not a technicality but a substantive defect that...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
john paul shibuda others vs nordox industries 2015 tzca 359 23 december 2015
Parties
Applicant: John Paul Shibuda; Applicant: Tanzania International Agri Input Co-Ltd; Respondent: Nordox Industrier AS
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
23 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection Regarding Competency of Application
Outcome
Application struck out with costs
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Proper Citation of Procedural Rules, Jurisdiction of Appellate Court
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Appellate Practice Security for Costs Proper Citation of Procedural Rules Jurisdiction of Appellate Court

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

John Paul Shibuda

Applicant

Tanzania International Agri Input Co-Ltd

Applicant

Nordox Industrier AS

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection Regarding Competency of Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to cite the correct procedural rule renders the application incompetent
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal can order deposit of decretal amount as security for costs

Ratio Decidendi

The application was struck out because the applicants failed to cite the specific and relevant procedural rule (Rule 120(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules) governing applications for security for costs, instead citing an inapplicable general rule. This omission is not a technicality but a substantive defect that renders the application incompetent.

Court Disposition

Application struck out with costs

Orders

  • Application struck out
  • Applicants to pay costs