travelport international ltd vs pricise systems ltd 2019 tzhccomd 165 10 september 2019

travelport international ltd vs pricise systems ltd 2019 tzhccomd 165 10 september 2019

The application sought a substantive amendment to the Court's order, not a mere correction of clerical or arithmetical error as permitted by Rule 75. The proper recourse for the applicant was by way of appeal or review, not amendment. The application was thus not maintainable and bad in law.

Citation
travelport international ltd vs pricise systems ltd 2019 tzhccomd 165 10 september 2019
Parties
Petitioner: Travelport International Limited; Respondent: Precise Systems Limited
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
10 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Commercial Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objections
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Correction of Judgments and Orders, Appeal Vs. Amendment, Preliminary Objections, Jurisdictional Error
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Arbitration Correction of Judgments and Orders Appeal Vs. Amendment Preliminary Objections Jurisdictional Error

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Travelport International Limited

Petitioner

Precise Systems Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Commercial Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objections

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Rule 75 of the High Court (Commercial Division) Procedure Rules, 2012 permits amendment of a substantive order rather than correction of clerical or arithmetical errors
  2. 2 Whether the application is maintainable or is an improper substitute for an appeal or review
  3. 3 Whether the affidavit in support is incurably defective due to argumentative paragraphs

Ratio Decidendi

The application sought a substantive amendment to the Court's order, not a mere correction of clerical or arithmetical error as permitted by Rule 75. The proper recourse for the applicant was by way of appeal or review, not amendment. The application was thus not maintainable and bad in law.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application dismissed for not being maintainable and bad in law as it was an improper substitute for an appeal or review
  • Costs awarded to the respondent