mabibo beer wines spirits ltd vs lucas mallya aka baraka stores another 2009 tzca 51 2 march 2009

mabibo beer wines spirits ltd vs lucas mallya aka baraka stores another 2009 tzca 51 2 march 2009

Failure to afford the parties a reasonable opportunity to be heard at the Fair Competition Commission was a serious irregularity and a violation of the mandatory requirements of Section 70(2)(a) of the Fair Competition Act and the principles of natural justice, rendering the proceedings and subsequent decision a nullity. The Fair Competition Tribunal's failure to address this irregularity warranted the Court's intervention by way of revision.

Citation
mabibo beer wines spirits ltd vs lucas mallya aka baraka stores another 2009 tzca 51 2 march 2009
Parties
Applicant: Mabibo Beer Wines and Spirits Ltd; 1st Respondent: Lucas Mallya aka Baraka Stores; 2nd Respondent: Commissioner for Customs, Tanzania Revenue Authority
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
2 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Application for Revision / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Merits of Revision
Outcome
Revision allowed; proceedings and decision of the Fair Competition Tribunal nullified and quashed; complaint to be initiated afresh; preliminary objection overruled; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Natural Justice, Right to Be Heard, Jurisdiction, Revision, Procedural Irregularity
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Competition Law Civil Procedure Natural Justice Right to Be Heard Jurisdiction Revision Procedural Irregularity

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mabibo Beer Wines and Spirits Ltd

Applicant

Lucas Mallya aka Baraka Stores

1st Respondent

Commissioner for Customs, Tanzania Revenue Authority

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application for Revision / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Merits of Revision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to hear parties at the Fair Competition Commission vitiated the proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the Fair Competition Tribunal erred in not addressing the issue of non-disclosure of cause of action and incompetence of appeal
  3. 3 Whether the application for revision was competent in light of section 5(2)(d) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act

Ratio Decidendi

Failure to afford the parties a reasonable opportunity to be heard at the Fair Competition Commission was a serious irregularity and a violation of the mandatory requirements of Section 70(2)(a) of the Fair Competition Act and the principles of natural justice, rendering the proceedings and subsequent decision a nullity. The Fair Competition Tribunal's failure to address this irregularity warranted the Court's intervention by way of revision.

Court Disposition

Revision allowed; proceedings and decision of the Fair Competition Tribunal nullified and quashed; complaint to be initiated afresh; preliminary objection overruled; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Proceedings and decision of the Fair Competition Tribunal quashed and nullified.
  • Complaint to be initiated afresh and determined in accordance with the law.