20180726 TZCA Dar es Salaam2

20180726 TZCA Dar es Salaam2

The Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to entertain suo motu revision of execution proceedings even after the High Court has concluded the matter, especially where a party not originally before the court is adversely affected and was denied the right to be heard. The applicant, not being a party to the original suit, could not seek remedies under section 38 of the Civil Procedure Code, and the circumstances justified the Court's intervention to correct a miscarriage of justice.

Citation
20180726 TZCA Dar es Salaam2
Parties
Applicant: Millicom (Tanzania) N.V.; 1st Respondent: James Alan Russel Bell; 2nd Respondent: Golden Globe International Services Limited; 3rd Respondent: Quality Group Limited; 4th Respondent: MIC UFA Limited; 5th Respondent: Millicom International Cellular S.A.; 6th Respondent: MIC Tanzania Limited
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
26 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Revision / Ruling on Suo Motu Revision by Court of Appeal
Outcome
Preliminary objections dismissed. Court affirms jurisdiction to proceed with suo motu revision.
Legal Topics
Right to Be Heard, Execution Proceedings, Jurisdiction of Appellate Court, Suo Motu Revision
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Execution of Judgments Right to Be Heard Execution Proceedings Jurisdiction of Appellate Court Suo Motu Revision

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Millicom (Tanzania) N.V.

Applicant

James Alan Russel Bell

1st Respondent

Golden Globe International Services Limited

2nd Respondent

Quality Group Limited

3rd Respondent

MIC UFA Limited

4th Respondent

Millicom International Cellular S.A.

5th Respondent

MIC Tanzania Limited

6th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Revision / Ruling on Suo Motu Revision by Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was denied the right to be heard in execution proceedings resulting in the attachment and sale of shares.
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to entertain suo motu revision in execution matters after the High Court has concluded proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to entertain suo motu revision of execution proceedings even after the High Court has concluded the matter, especially where a party not originally before the court is adversely affected and was denied the right to be heard. The applicant, not being a party to the original suit, could not seek remedies under section 38 of the Civil Procedure Code, and the circumstances justified the Court's intervention to correct a miscarriage of justice.

Court Disposition

Preliminary objections dismissed. Court affirms jurisdiction to proceed with suo motu revision.

Orders

  • The Court will proceed to determine the merits of the applicant's complaint regarding denial of the right to be heard in execution proceedings.
  • Parties to be heard on the substantive issues in the revision.