Download PDF

Tanzania Judgment

TZHCCOMD

nas hauliers limited 2others vs equity bank t limited another 2022 tzhccomd 175 13 may 2022

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

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 Mwalongo

Everest Freight Limited

Applicant Counsel: Frank Mwalongo

Tanga Petroleum Company Ltd

Applicant Counsel: Frank Mwalongo

Equity Bank Tanzania Limited

Respondent Counsel: Timon Vitalis

Equity Bank Kenya Ltd

Respondent Counsel: Timon Vitalis

Amounts and remedies

  • Disputed Sum: USD 18,710,737

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Miscellaneous Commercial Application / Interlocutory Ruling on Application for Temporary Injunction

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

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

  1. 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.

Source document

TZHCCOMD

Judgment· 13 May 2022

nas hauliers limited 2others vs equity bank t limited another 2022 tzhccomd 175 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

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Order XXXVII, Rule 2(2) of Cap. 33 R.E 2019

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Section 68(e) of Cap. 33 R.E 2019

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Section 95 of Cap. 33 R.E 2019

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.