mohamedi saidi kiluwa vs kiluwa steel group company limited and 2 others 2021 tzhccomd 2056 20 april 2021

mohamedi saidi kiluwa vs kiluwa steel group company limited and 2 others 2021 tzhccomd 2056 20 april 2021

The omission alleged by the applicant does not fall within the scope of section 96 CPC or Rule 75 Commercial Court Rules, as the court's prior order was clear and not a clerical or arithmetical error; granting the application would contradict previous orders.

Citation
mohamedi saidi kiluwa vs kiluwa steel group company limited and 2 others 2021 tzhccomd 2056 20 april 2021
Parties
Applicant: Mohamed Said Kiluwa; 1st Respondent: Kiluwa Steel Group Company Limited; 2nd Respondent: Wang Shengjun; 3rd Respondent: Wang Wenquian
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
20 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Commercial Application / Ruling on Application to Amend Prior Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Judgments, Director Remuneration, Jurisdiction, Company Meetings
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Company Law Amendment of Judgments Director Remuneration Jurisdiction Company Meetings

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

Parties

Mohamed Said Kiluwa

Applicant

Kiluwa Steel Group Company Limited

1st Respondent

Wang Shengjun

2nd Respondent

Wang Wenquian

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Commercial Application / Ruling on Application to Amend Prior Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court can amend its prior ruling to order immediate payment of director's remuneration without awaiting audit report
  2. 2 Whether the omission alleged falls within the scope of section 96 CPC or Rule 75 Commercial Court Rules

Ratio Decidendi

The omission alleged by the applicant does not fall within the scope of section 96 CPC or Rule 75 Commercial Court Rules, as the court's prior order was clear and not a clerical or arithmetical error; granting the application would contradict previous orders.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs