neco data ltd vs t revenue authority 3 others 2006 tzhccomd 61 28 august 2006

neco data ltd vs t revenue authority 3 others 2006 tzhccomd 61 28 august 2006

The Plaintiff's claims arise from the same agreement and common questions of law and fact exist; preliminary objections do not raise pure points of law and require evidence; the application under Order 37 Rule 10 is not appropriate as it seeks final, not interim, relief.

Citation
neco data ltd vs t revenue authority 3 others 2006 tzhccomd 61 28 august 2006
Parties
Plaintiff: Necor Data Limited; 1st Defendant: Tanzania Revenue Authority; 2nd Defendant: Necor (Zambia) Limited; 3rd Defendant: Alfred Adam Martin Lyimo; 4th Defendant: Necor Zambia Limited
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
28 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Commercial Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objections and Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application under Order 37 Rule 10 dismissed with costs; preliminary objections dismissed; costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
Locus Standi, Misjoinder of Parties, Misjoinder of Causes of Action, Interlocutory Applications
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Contract Law Locus Standi Misjoinder of Parties Misjoinder of Causes of Action Interlocutory Applications

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

Parties

Necor Data Limited

Plaintiff

Tanzania Revenue Authority

1st Defendant

Necor (Zambia) Limited

2nd Defendant

Alfred Adam Martin Lyimo

3rd Defendant

Necor Zambia Limited

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objections and Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff has locus standi to sue the first defendant
  2. 2 Whether there is misjoinder of causes of action and parties
  3. 3 Whether the application under Order 37 Rule 10 is interlocutory or a final determination

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff's claims arise from the same agreement and common questions of law and fact exist; preliminary objections do not raise pure points of law and require evidence; the application under Order 37 Rule 10 is not appropriate as it seeks final, not interim, relief.

Court Disposition

Application under Order 37 Rule 10 dismissed with costs; preliminary objections dismissed; costs in the cause.

Orders

  • Application under Order 37 Rule 10 dismissed with costs
  • Preliminary objections dismissed