N

!1I G}i CJOUHT OF TJJlfZJJri.:, CIVIL .CASE NO. 162 OF 1986 MOH/1.MED H!i.SSiJif MAHI:.1OOD ••• • • •••••••••••.•••• PLAINTIFF versus 1. LFRI i'.:.L ( T) LTD) 2. c1lPT. Nuuzro .DESJ?o 1.r1 ~o ••••••••••••••••• DEFENDANT RULilTG Ki,ZII.IQTO, J • '.I.1110 applicm1t h - 3 n2.dc nn application under Order 6 36 rule/o:i:' the Civil rrocedure Code for cm order directing the second clc:fcado.11t ·to ucposi t into cou1°t the principal auount, costs und interest cl:.:,iuecl in the plaint or n1 ter- nntively to deposit into court his current va;I.:id pnssport pending the fin2.l diEpo:::i tion of the suit. '.i'he grounds ·for the npplicr:.tion ;:•_;.-e: contt\ir:.cd in the m:fidavit. In the nffidnvi t the n)/lic2n"t ~:: :·: ok1tod tho.t the second respondent is n foreir:nerj ".:l10.t despite diligent offorto ·fo r::.ocertain if ·'·:... socond respondent has any innovable property iri Tanzania, it would appear that the second respondent own no such property, that taking into account.the lcrge anount of the cl::iin the court sl:ould grcmt the orders prayed for. foo.rned Counsel fer the respondent has s~bnitted aoong o thc~r things tho. t Order 36 rule 6 Civil Procedure Code does not o.pply in this c..--·c:c. He argued that the rule denls with nttncr. nc11t of pr·.:i;ibr:.y ~---::fore Judgei.J.ent. He argued furthe:1.1 that the applicc.nt i.s ~:;1:;:ilying in effect for security and as such the o.p)lico.tion ur.('.er Order 36 rule 6 Civil Procedure Co<le is ir.coupctcnt a_,L shouLi. be rcjectede I ngree with lenrne<l counsel for the respondent that Order 36 rule 6 Civil Procedure Code~qenls ~~th security for production of property. It spells the circunstnnces under whiclf,, the court can be justified to invoke -rule 6. First the applicanj, nust show in his nfficlnvi t tlmt the defendant ni tl:. intent to obstruct oi' c'olc.;y the execution of any decree is about to dispose! . "-•1 his property or is about to renove his._ property frou the jurisdi:-\ ,·' otion of the court then and only then with the court require JI:" the defenqant to furnish security, Ip this r.:.pplication the appl~i- cnnt did not· nllec;e in his nffidnvi t that the respondent has obstructed the course of justice, nor did he allege that the ,, ·•s respondent is o.oo:.1t to dispose his property. In:fnct according to the nfficlo.vi t the respondent has no p:r;,operty in Tanzania. As ' such it wo.s c~eo.rly Y.'rong to have broughi! this application under Order 36 rule 6 Civil Procedure Code. The application is clearly