kuringe real estate co ltd vs bank of africa t ltd and others 2020 tzhccomd 2004 20 july 2020

kuringe real estate co ltd vs bank of africa t ltd and others 2020 tzhccomd 2004 20 july 2020

The application was dismissed because the applicant had previously withdrawn a similar application on the same subject matter and between the same parties without leave to refile, and the standing order declining leave to refile had not been vacated. Allowing the application would render Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of the CPC meaningless and constitute an abuse of court process.

Citation
kuringe real estate co ltd vs bank of africa t ltd and others 2020 tzhccomd 2004 20 july 2020
Parties
Applicant: Kuringe Real Estate Co. Ltd; 1st Respondent: Bank of Africa (T) Ltd; 2nd Respondent: Wilson Simon Ngui; 3rd Respondent: Mr. Charles K t/a CDJ Classic Group Ltd
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
20 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Commercial Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objections
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Abuse of Process, Objection Proceedings, Execution of Judgments
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Jurisdiction Abuse of Process Objection Proceedings Execution of Judgments

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kuringe Real Estate Co. Ltd

Applicant

Bank of Africa (T) Ltd

1st Respondent

Wilson Simon Ngui

2nd Respondent

Mr. Charles K t/a CDJ Classic Group Ltd

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Commercial Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objections

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain the application under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of the Civil Procedure Code
  2. 2 Whether the application constitutes an abuse of court process

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the applicant had previously withdrawn a similar application on the same subject matter and between the same parties without leave to refile, and the standing order declining leave to refile had not been vacated. Allowing the application would render Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of the CPC meaningless and constitute an abuse of court process.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Applicant to pay costs