maxcom africa plc vs uda rapid transit plc 2018 tzhccomd 49 23 april 2018

maxcom africa plc vs uda rapid transit plc 2018 tzhccomd 49 23 april 2018

The affidavit in support of the application was materially defective as it contained matters not within the advocate's personal knowledge and failed to disclose the source of information, violating Order XIX Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Code. The defect warranted striking out the affidavit and consequently the application.

Citation
maxcom africa plc vs uda rapid transit plc 2018 tzhccomd 49 23 april 2018
Parties
Applicant: Maxcom Africa PLC; Respondent: UDA Rapid Transit PLC
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
23 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Commercial Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objections
Outcome
Application struck out
Legal Topics
Affidavit Competency, Temporary Injunction, Preliminary Objection, Overtaken by Events
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 2 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maxcom Africa PLC

Applicant

UDA Rapid Transit PLC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Commercial Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objections

  1. 1 Whether the application was overtaken by events
  2. 2 Whether the affidavit in support of the application was sworn by a competent person

Ratio Decidendi

The affidavit in support of the application was materially defective as it contained matters not within the advocate's personal knowledge and failed to disclose the source of information, violating Order XIX Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Code. The defect warranted striking out the affidavit and consequently the application.

Court Disposition

Application struck out

Orders

  • Affidavit in support of the application struck out
  • Application struck out for lack of supporting affidavit