Download PDF

Tanzania Judgment

TANZLII

kikim contractors co ltd vs ncba bank another 2023 tzhclandd 16916 18 september 2023

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The application was uncontested and there was no justifiable reason to refuse the temporary injunction; therefore, the order was granted as prayed.

Court disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Temporary injunction granted restraining respondents from transferring ownership and evicting applicant's managing director from the suit property pending determination of the main suit
  • Each party to bear its own costs

02

Material facts

Parties

KIKIM CONTRACTORS CO. LTD

Applicant Counsel: Frank Ntuta

NCSA BANK

1st Respondent Counsel: Nimrod Msemwa

NUTMEG AUCTIONEERS & PROPERTY MANAGERS CO. LTD

2nd Respondent Counsel: Nimrod Msemwa

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Application for Temporary Injunction

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Whether the applicant is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from transferring ownership and evicting the applicant's managing director from the suit property

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant sought a temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from transferring ownership and evicting the applicant's managing director from the suit house pending determination of the main suit.
Respondent
The respondents withdrew their intention to oppose the application and prayed for the application to be granted with no order as to costs.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Order XXXVII Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Code Cap 33 R.E 2019

    Temporary injunction may be granted where the application is uncontested and no justifiable reason exists to refuse the order.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The application was uncontested and there was no justifiable reason to refuse the temporary injunction; therefore, the order was granted as prayed.

Court disposition

Application granted

  • Temporary injunction granted restraining respondents from transferring ownership and evicting applicant's managing director from the suit property pending determination of the main suit
  • Each party to bear its own costs

Source and reliance status

TANZLII · 18 September 2023

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

TANZLII

Judgment· 18 September 2023

kikim contractors co ltd vs ncba bank another 2023 tzhclandd 16916 18 september 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION)

AT DAR ES SALAAM MISC. LAND APPLICATION NO 541 OF 2023 , (Originating From Land Case No. 268 of 2023) KIKIM CONTRACTORS CO. LTD APPLICANT

VERSUS NCSA BANK 1^ RESPONDENT NUTMEG AUCTIONEERS & PROPERTY MANAGERS CO. LTD 2"° RESPONDENT

RULING Date ofLast Hearing: 18/09/2023 Date ofRuling: 18/09/2023 LARUFANI,J The applicant filed in this court the instant appllcatlon seeking for an order of temporary injunction to retrain the respondents, their successor in tittle, employees, agents, workmen and whoever person (s) purporting to act under the authority, instruction or otherwise from transfer of ownership and evicting the applicant's managing director from,the suit house located on Plot No. 8 Block 'C Msasani Area within Kinondoni Municipality in Dar es Salaam Region pending hearing and determination of the main suit The application was made under order XXXVII Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Code Cap 33 R. E 2019 and if is supported by the affidavit sworn by Martin Edward Simba, Managing Director of the applicant and opposed by the counter affidavit sworn by Brigitha Mhumba, legal service officer of the first-respondent. \ . 1 However, when the application come for hearing today the counsel for the respondnts told the court that after discussing with his diets they have decided to withdraw their intention of opposing the appiication and prayed the appiication be granted but with no order as to costs. The prayer by the counsei for the respondents was not opposed by the counsei for the applicant. Hearing heard what was said to the court by the counsel for the parties and after seeing the application is

uncontested the court has gone through the chamber summons and its sopporting affidavit and find there is no any justifiabie reason which can make it to desist to grant the order the appiicant is seeking from this court. In the premises the application is granted and the order of temporary injunction sought in the chamber summons aganst the respondents is granted as prayerd save for the costs which the court is ordering each party to beer her own costs. It is so ordered. Dated at Dar es Saiaam this 18"" day of September, 2023 I. Arufani

JUDGE 18/09/2023 Court: Ruling delivered today 18"^ day of September, 2023 in the presence of Mr. Frank Ntuta, advocate for the appiicant and in the presence of Mr. Nimrod Msemwa, advocate for the respondents. Right of appeal to the court of appeal is fully explained. t [(.V, ytAtk < I. Arufani

JUDGE H 18/09/2023 FA

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Order XXXVII Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Code Cap 33 R.E 2019

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.