KIRIBO FINAL

KIRIBO FINAL

All grounds raised by the applicant lack merit; the executing court acted within its powers, complied with legal requirements for execution and auction, and no credible evidence was provided to support the applicant's claims. The application for revision is dismissed.

Citation
KIRIBO FINAL
Parties
Applicant: M/S Kiribo Limited; 1st Respondent: The Board of Trustees of the National Social Security Fund; 2nd Respondent: Ng’wandu Joseph Tenga c/o Shashinhale Auction Mart and Court Brokers
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
30 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Revision / Ruling
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs awarded to the 1st respondent.
Legal Topics
Revision, Execution Proceedings, Auction Sale, Consent Decree, Attachment of Property
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Execution of Decrees Revision Execution Proceedings Auction Sale Consent Decree Attachment of Property

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M/S Kiribo Limited

Applicant

The Board of Trustees of the National Social Security Fund

1st Respondent

Ng’wandu Joseph Tenga c/o Shashinhale Auction Mart and Court Brokers

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Revision / Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the executing court erred in law and fact regarding the attachment and sale of property subject to a consent decree
  2. 2 Whether the auction was conducted legally
  3. 3 Whether the property attached belonged to the judgment debtor

Ratio Decidendi

All grounds raised by the applicant lack merit; the executing court acted within its powers, complied with legal requirements for execution and auction, and no credible evidence was provided to support the applicant's claims. The application for revision is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs awarded to the 1st respondent.

Orders

  • Application for revision rejected.
  • Costs awarded to the 1st respondent.