nas hauliers limited 2others vs equity bank t limited another 2022 tzhccomd 175 13 may 2022
- Citation
- nas hauliers limited 2others vs equity bank t limited another 2022 tzhccomd 175 13 may 2022
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHCCOMD
- Decision
- 13 May 2022
- Posture
- Miscellaneous Commercial Application / Interlocutory Ruling on Application for Temporary Injunction
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHCCOMD
- Decision
- 13 May 2022
- Posture
- Miscellaneous Commercial Application / Interlocutory Ruling on Application for Temporary Injunction
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The application for temporary injunction is granted as both parties consented, and to protect interests, status quo must be maintained regarding the securities pending final determination of the main commercial case.
Court disposition
application granted
Orders
- Respondents and their agents are restrained from selling any collateral and from taking any step towards recovering USD 18,710,737.00 and any interest and penalties from the applicants resulting from the banking facility dated 22nd May 2019, pending hearing and final determination of Commercial Case No. 105 of 2021.
- Both parties are ordered to strictly maintain the status quo and neither party nor their agents should sell, dispose of, or tamper with the securities detailed in Section B-3 of the Facility Agreement marked as Annexure NAS-1.
- Each party to bear its own costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
NAS Haulers Limited
Applicant Counsel: Frank MwalongoEverest Freight Limited
Applicant Counsel: Frank MwalongoTanga Petroleum Company Ltd
Applicant Counsel: Frank MwalongoEquity Bank Tanzania Limited
Respondent Counsel: Timon VitalisEquity Bank Kenya Ltd
Respondent Counsel: Timon VitalisAmounts and remedies
- Disputed Sum: USD 18,710,737
03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Commercial Application / Interlocutory Ruling on Application for Temporary Injunction
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
whether the respondents should be restrained from selling collateral and recovering the disputed sum pending determination of the main commercial case
- 02
whether status quo should be maintained regarding the securities
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Applicants sought an interim order restraining respondents from selling collateral or recovering USD 18,710,737.00 and any interest or penalties pending determination of Commercial Case No. 105 of 2021.
- Respondent
- Respondents did not object to the prayers for temporary injunction but requested an order for maintenance of status quo and that neither party nor their agents should dispose of or tamper with the securities detailed in Section B-3 of the Facility Agreement.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Order XXXVII, Rule 2(2), section 68(e), section 95 of Cap. 33 R.E 2019
Grant of temporary injunction to preserve subject matter pending determination of main suit
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The application for temporary injunction is granted as both parties consented, and to protect interests, status quo must be maintained regarding the securities pending final determination of the main commercial case.
Court disposition
application granted
- Respondents and their agents are restrained from selling any collateral and from taking any step towards recovering USD 18,710,737.00 and any interest and penalties from the applicants resulting from the banking facility dated 22nd May 2019, pending hearing and final determination of Commercial Case No. 105 of 2021.
- Both parties are ordered to strictly maintain the status quo and neither party nor their agents should sell, dispose of, or tamper with the securities detailed in Section B-3 of the Facility Agreement marked as Annexure NAS-1.
- Each party to bear its own costs.
Source and reliance status
TZHCCOMD · 13 May 2022
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
TZHCCOMD
Judgment· 13 May 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED
REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION)
AT PAR ES SALAAM MISC. COMMERCIAL APPL. NO. 174 OF 2021 (Arising from Commercial Case No. 105 of 2021) "\\ A NAS HAULERS LIMITED.................. kvl^APRIiTCANT EVEREST FREIGHT LIMITED.... X.../21/'APPLICANT TANGA PETROLEUM COMPANY<LTdXs^ APPLICANT VERSUS^. EQUITY BANK TANZANIA, LIMITED....Is1 RESPONDENT EQUITY BANK<KENYA LTD...Z?........ 2nd RESPONDENT Date of Last Order:'12/04/^022 Date of final .ruling: 13/05/2022 X X / ' ~ < RULING NANGELA, J:. \\ v The Applicants herein brought an application before this Court under a certificate of urgency. Their Application is brought under Order XXXVII, Rule 2 (2), section 68 (e) and section 95 of Cap. 33 R.E 2019. The same was brought by way of a chamber summons supported by an affidavit of Mr Ally Ahmed Said, a Director of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Applicants Page 1 of 5 herein. The Applicants are praying for the following orders inter-partes. (a) That, this honourable court be pleased to make an interim order to restrain the Respondents or their agents, servants, or whomsoever will be acting under their instructions or authority, from selling any collateral and from talking any step towards recoveringy \Z<\ z a sum of USD ($) 18^0,7^7.00 and any interest^ andx p.erialties z \\ \\ therefrom, from \th^ "Applicants, resulting from the banking facility dated ;22nd May 2019, pending hearihg andTfnapdetermination of the^ommerciat case No. 105
of <Z>z 2 \;(b^Costs aJthis Application be provided Z\ x \for by the Respondents. \(c) Any other orders as this VZ“ZZ honourable Court deems just and fir to grant. Initially, the Applicants had included an ex-parte prayer for maintenance of status quo pending the hearing and determination of this application. The ex- parte prayer was unopposed and, hence, granted on the 23rd November 2021 as the Defendants undertook Page 2 of 5 not to take any step in respect of the properties which are the subject of litigation in the Commercial Case No.105 of 2017. In that main case, the Defendant had filed a WSD and raised a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of this Court. On the 24th march 2022 this Court overruled the objection. As such, on the 11th April 2022 the parties appeared before me. \ v \ -f Whereas Mr Frank Mwalongo appeared.^ for/ the Applicants herein, Mr Timon.,Vitalis\appearedfor the Respondents. /> In his submission^before thi§> Court, Mr Vitalis informed the Court that;/the Respondents were not /< \\ " f inclined to objects prayers by the Applicants ^ this Application for temporary injunction. However,. to protect the interest of both parties, Mr f' V\\ \x Vitalis urged^this'Court to grant an order to the effect that, the status quo be maintained, and, neither party nor their agents should sale or dispose of or temper with the securities whose details are
set out in "Section B-3 of the Facility Agreement" marked as "Annexure NAS-1" to the Applicants' Affidavit. He also prayed that each party bear its own costs of this application. Page 3 of 5 For his part, Mr Mwalongo did not object to the prayers by Mr Vitalis. He also withdrew from the Court, the Applicants7 prayers for costs. Given that fact, this Court settles for the following orders: (a) That, the current application is here by granted. (b)The Respondents or their agents, servants, or whomsoever . yvi 11 be\, acting under their instructions'" of authority, are / restrained from Z> \ selling any Collaterals and from talking any step towards recovering asumof USD($)18,710,737.00 /<^''xand\any interest and penalties z / ptherefrom, from the Applicants, \ -z X resulting from the banking facility J J dated 22nd May 2019, pending hearing and final determination of the Commercial case No. 105 of 2021. (c) That, equally both parties are hereby ordered to ensure that, the status quo is strictly maintained, Page 4 of 5 and, neither party nor their agents should sale or dispose of or temper with the securities whose details are set out in "Section B-3 of the Facility Agreement" marked as "Annexure NAS-1" to the * THE Page 5 of 5
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.