precise systems ltd vs tp services ltd and another 2020 tzhccomd 1868 18 june 2020

precise systems ltd vs tp services ltd and another 2020 tzhccomd 1868 18 june 2020

The applicant failed to prove that the 2nd respondent had absconded or left the jurisdiction with intent to delay, avoid, or obstruct execution of a decree. The 2nd respondent has never been present in Tanzania, and mere absence or insistence on arbitration does not amount to intent to avoid court process. There is no evidence of misbehavior or intent to obstruct justice. Therefore, the application for arrest before judgment or security is without merit.

Citation
precise systems ltd vs tp services ltd and another 2020 tzhccomd 1868 18 june 2020
Parties
Applicant: Precise Systems Ltd; 1st Respondent: TP Services Ltd; 2nd Respondent: Travelport International Ltd
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
18 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Commercial Application / Ruling on Application for Arrest Before Judgment or Security for Amount Claimed
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Arrest Before Judgment, Security for Costs, Jurisdiction, Execution of Decrees, Foreign Parties
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Arrest Before Judgment Security for Costs Jurisdiction Execution of Decrees Foreign Parties

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Precise Systems Ltd

Applicant

TP Services Ltd

1st Respondent

Travelport International Ltd

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Commercial Application / Ruling on Application for Arrest Before Judgment or Security for Amount Claimed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2nd respondent should be arrested before judgment or ordered to deposit security for the amount claimed under Order XXXVI Rule 1(a)(i) & 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Code

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to prove that the 2nd respondent had absconded or left the jurisdiction with intent to delay, avoid, or obstruct execution of a decree. The 2nd respondent has never been present in Tanzania, and mere absence or insistence on arbitration does not amount to intent to avoid court process. There is no evidence of misbehavior or intent to obstruct justice. Therefore, the application for arrest before judgment or security is without merit.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Applicant to pay costs