nkupa t co ltd vs nmb public company another 2019 tzhc 29 28 october 2019

nkupa t co ltd vs nmb public company another 2019 tzhc 29 28 october 2019

The plaint failed to provide particulars of the specific loss claimed, and thus did not meet the statutory requirements for establishing pecuniary jurisdiction. The court therefore lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Citation
nkupa t co ltd vs nmb public company another 2019 tzhc 29 28 october 2019
Parties
Applicant/plaintiff: Nkupa Tanzania Company Ltd; 1st Respondent/1st Defendant: NMB Bank Public Company; 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant: Gadau Auction Mart & Company Ltd
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
28 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection Regarding Pecuniary Jurisdiction
Outcome
Case dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Pecuniary Jurisdiction, Temporary Injunction, Specific and General Damages, Requirements of a Plaint
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Pecuniary Jurisdiction Temporary Injunction Specific and General Damages Requirements of a Plaint

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nkupa Tanzania Company Ltd

Applicant/plaintiff

NMB Bank Public Company

1st Respondent/1st Defendant

Gadau Auction Mart & Company Ltd

2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection Regarding Pecuniary Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit based on the value stated in the plaint

Ratio Decidendi

The plaint failed to provide particulars of the specific loss claimed, and thus did not meet the statutory requirements for establishing pecuniary jurisdiction. The court therefore lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Court Disposition

Case dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Civil Case No. 179 of 2019 is dismissed with costs.