masoud kikula vs benson j semsa others 2020 tzhcld 62 8 may 2020

masoud kikula vs benson j semsa others 2020 tzhcld 62 8 may 2020

The applicant's property was properly attached because, as Managing Director and shareholder of the company whose assets could not be located, he is responsible for satisfying the decree. The corporate veil was justifiably lifted due to the company's refusal to be served and absence of company assets. The claim that the property is a matrimonial home is unsubstantiated as the house is registered in the applicant's name.

Citation
masoud kikula vs benson j semsa others 2020 tzhcld 62 8 may 2020
Parties
Applicant: Masoud Kikula; 1st Respondent: Benson J. Semsa; 2nd Respondent: CDJ Clasic Group Ltd; 3rd Respondent: Fast Pace C/F Co. Ltd
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
8 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Objection to Warrant of Attachment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Execution of Decrees, Lifting Corporate Veil, Attachment of Property, Company Liability
Source Language
English
Labour Law Civil Procedure Company Law Execution of Decrees Lifting Corporate Veil Attachment of Property Company Liability

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Masoud Kikula

Applicant

Benson J. Semsa

1st Respondent

CDJ Clasic Group Ltd

2nd Respondent

Fast Pace C/F Co. Ltd

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Objection to Warrant of Attachment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the disputed house was properly attached in Execution No. 308/2016
  2. 2 Whether the applicant, not being a party to the original dispute, can be subject to execution proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the property is protected as a matrimonial home

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's property was properly attached because, as Managing Director and shareholder of the company whose assets could not be located, he is responsible for satisfying the decree. The corporate veil was justifiably lifted due to the company's refusal to be served and absence of company assets. The claim that the property is a matrimonial home is unsubstantiated as the house is registered in the applicant's name.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed for lack of merit.
  • The attachment order stands unless the applicant and other shareholders deposit or pay the decretal sum to the respondent.