ms ndihesi enterprises limited vs exim bank tanzania limited others 2013 tzhc 2129 6 september 2013

ms ndihesi enterprises limited vs exim bank tanzania limited others 2013 tzhc 2129 6 september 2013

The suit is not time barred as the cause of action arose in June 2009 and was filed within the six-year limitation period; failure to state exact date, month, and year in the plaint does not render the suit incompetent due to liberal interpretation of procedural requirements.

Citation
ms ndihesi enterprises limited vs exim bank tanzania limited others 2013 tzhc 2129 6 september 2013
Parties
Plaintiff: M/S Ndihesi Enterprises Limited; 1st Defendant: Exim Bank (Tanzania) Limited; 2nd Defendant: Ayubu E. Haule; 3rd Defendant: Guydon A. Lukuwi
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
6 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
preliminary objections dismissed
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Compliance With Procedural Requirements, Fraudulent Account Opening, Corporate Authorization
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Banking Law Company Law Limitation of Actions Compliance With Procedural Requirements Fraudulent Account Opening Corporate Authorization

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

Parties

M/S Ndihesi Enterprises Limited

Plaintiff

Exim Bank (Tanzania) Limited

1st Defendant

Ayubu E. Haule

2nd Defendant

Guydon A. Lukuwi

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suit is time barred under the Law of Limitation Act
  2. 2 Whether the plaint complies with Order VII Rule 1(e) of the Civil Procedure Code

Ratio Decidendi

The suit is not time barred as the cause of action arose in June 2009 and was filed within the six-year limitation period; failure to state exact date, month, and year in the plaint does not render the suit incompetent due to liberal interpretation of procedural requirements.

Court Disposition

preliminary objections dismissed

Orders

  • 1st defendant’s preliminary points of objection dismissed with costs