moto matiko mabanga vs ophil energy plc and others 2021 tzhccomd 2026 12 february 2021

moto matiko mabanga vs ophil energy plc and others 2021 tzhccomd 2026 12 february 2021

The suit is time barred as it is founded on contract, with the cause of action arising on 19th March 2010 upon termination of the Consultancy Agreements. The suit was filed on 13th May 2019, exceeding the six-year limitation period prescribed by law. The proper remedy is dismissal under section 3(1) of the Law of Limitation Act.

Citation
moto matiko mabanga vs ophil energy plc and others 2021 tzhccomd 2026 12 february 2021
Parties
Plaintiff: Moto Matiko Mabanga; 1st Defendant: Ophir Energy PLC; 2nd Defendant: Ophir Services Pty Ltd; 3rd Defendant: B.G. International Limited; 4th Defendant: B.G. Tanzania Limited; 5th Defendant: Pavillion Energy P.T.Y; 6th Defendant: Royal Dutch Shell PLC; 7th Defendant: Medco Energy Global Pte Limited
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
12 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Commercial Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objections
Outcome
Suit dismissed as time barred with costs.
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Jurisdiction, Breach of Contract, Preliminary Objection
Source Language
English
Commercial Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Limitation of Actions Jurisdiction Breach of Contract Preliminary Objection

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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moto Matiko Mabanga

Plaintiff

Ophir Energy PLC

1st Defendant

Ophir Services Pty Ltd

2nd Defendant

B.G. International Limited

3rd Defendant

B.G. Tanzania Limited

4th Defendant

Pavillion Energy P.T.Y

5th Defendant

Royal Dutch Shell PLC

6th Defendant

Medco Energy Global Pte Limited

7th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objections

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suit is time barred under the Law of Limitation Act
  2. 2 Whether the High Court (Commercial Division) has jurisdiction over the dispute
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The suit is time barred as it is founded on contract, with the cause of action arising on 19th March 2010 upon termination of the Consultancy Agreements. The suit was filed on 13th May 2019, exceeding the six-year limitation period prescribed by law. The proper remedy is dismissal under section 3(1) of the Law of Limitation Act.

Court Disposition

Suit dismissed as time barred with costs.

Orders

  • Suit dismissed pursuant to section 3(1) of the Law of Limitation Act, Cap. 89 R.E. 2019.
  • Plaintiff to pay costs.