lin jie vs mabula balele shiganga and 2 others 2021 tzhc 6373 30 september 2021

lin jie vs mabula balele shiganga and 2 others 2021 tzhc 6373 30 september 2021

The applicant failed to demonstrate a sufficient interest in the attached property, as there was no evidence that the property, including the two mining licences, had been transferred and registered in the applicant's name, and the 1st respondent, as decree holder, was not a party to the sale agreement.

Citation
lin jie vs mabula balele shiganga and 2 others 2021 tzhc 6373 30 september 2021
Parties
Applicant: Lin Jie; 1st Respondent: Mabula Balele Shiganga; 2nd Respondent: East Wealth International Mining Limited; 3rd Respondent: Rock City Takers Limited
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
30 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Application / Judgment on Application to Investigate Claims Under Order XXI Rule 57(1) and (2) and Section 95 of the Civil Procedure Code
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Execution of Judgments, Attachment of Property, Objection Proceedings, Sale Agreement, Arbitration Clause
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Execution of Judgments Attachment of Property Objection Proceedings Sale Agreement Arbitration Clause

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lin Jie

Applicant

Mabula Balele Shiganga

1st Respondent

East Wealth International Mining Limited

2nd Respondent

Rock City Takers Limited

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Civil Application / Judgment on Application to Investigate Claims Under Order XXI Rule 57(1) and (2) and Section 95 of the Civil Procedure Code

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant demonstrated interest in the property subject to attachment in execution of the award

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate a sufficient interest in the attached property, as there was no evidence that the property, including the two mining licences, had been transferred and registered in the applicant's name, and the 1st respondent, as decree holder, was not a party to the sale agreement.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Execution to proceed unconditionally.
  • Right of appeal explained.