leopard net logistics company limited vs tanzania commercial bank limited 3 others 2021 tzhc 9043 28 december 2021

leopard net logistics company limited vs tanzania commercial bank limited 3 others 2021 tzhc 9043 28 december 2021

The applicant failed to demonstrate a triable issue against the 1st respondent, failed to substantiate irreparable loss, and did not establish that the balance of convenience favored granting the injunction. All three mandatory criteria for a mareva/interim injunction were not met; thus, the application was dismissed.

Citation
leopard net logistics company limited vs tanzania commercial bank limited 3 others 2021 tzhc 9043 28 december 2021
Parties
Applicant: Leopard Net Logistics Company Limited; 1st Respondent: Tanzania Commercial Bank Limited; 2nd Respondent: Chief Executive, Tanzania Forest Service Agency; 3rd Respondent: Afrimax Enterprises Limited; 4th Respondent: Attorney General
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
28 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Mareva Injunction
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunction, Interim Injunctions, Loan Default, Mortgage Enforcement, Notice to Sue Government
Source Language
English

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leopard Net Logistics Company Limited

Applicant

Tanzania Commercial Bank Limited

1st Respondent

Chief Executive, Tanzania Forest Service Agency

2nd Respondent

Afrimax Enterprises Limited

3rd Respondent

Attorney General

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Mareva Injunction

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a mareva injunction restraining the sale of mortgaged property pending expiry of notice to sue the government
  2. 2 Whether the applicant demonstrated the conditions for grant of a mareva/interim injunction

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate a triable issue against the 1st respondent, failed to substantiate irreparable loss, and did not establish that the balance of convenience favored granting the injunction. All three mandatory criteria for a mareva/interim injunction were not met; thus, the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs