manta limited vs sealand limited another 2012 tzhc 187 11 may 2012

manta limited vs sealand limited another 2012 tzhc 187 11 may 2012

The application was incompetent as it was brought under wrong provisions of law, by a party without locus standi, and was time barred. The applicant, being a stranger to the original suit, should have proceeded by objection proceedings or a separate suit to protect her property. The court was not properly moved and had no jurisdiction to grant the orders sought.

Citation
manta limited vs sealand limited another 2012 tzhc 187 11 may 2012
Parties
Applicant: Manta Limited; First Respondent: Sealand Limited; Second Respondent: Carlo Mistrangioli
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
11 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Locus Standi, Jurisdiction, Limitation of Actions, Execution of Decrees, Objection Proceedings
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Locus Standi Jurisdiction Limitation of Actions Execution of Decrees Objection Proceedings

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Manta Limited

Applicant

Sealand Limited

First Respondent

Carlo Mistrangioli

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application was properly before the court under the cited provisions of law
  2. 2 Whether the applicant had locus standi to bring the application
  3. 3 Whether the application was time barred

Ratio Decidendi

The application was incompetent as it was brought under wrong provisions of law, by a party without locus standi, and was time barred. The applicant, being a stranger to the original suit, should have proceeded by objection proceedings or a separate suit to protect her property. The court was not properly moved and had no jurisdiction to grant the orders sought.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.