raymond focus mlay vs kcb bank tanzania 2022 tzhclandd 247 25 april 2022

raymond focus mlay vs kcb bank tanzania 2022 tzhclandd 247 25 april 2022

Applicant established a prima facie case, demonstrated irreparable injury, and balance of convenience favors him; status quo ante must be restored, and respondents must vacate the premises pending determination of the main suit.

Citation
raymond focus mlay vs kcb bank tanzania 2022 tzhclandd 247 25 april 2022
Parties
Applicant: Raymond Focus Mlay; 1st Respondent: KCB Bank Tanzania; 2nd Respondent: Dooreen Huruma Mawole also known as Doreen Albert Temu; 3rd Respondent: Evans General Traders; 4th Respondent: MEM Auctioneers & General Brokers Ltd; 5th Respondent: Furahini Joseph Lema; 6th Respondent: Saimon Onesmo Stephen (Principal Officer of 6th respondent)
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
25 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Application for Temporary Injunction
Outcome
Application granted with costs to be borne by 5th and 6th respondents.
Legal Topics
Temporary Injunction, Status Quo Ante, Eviction, Ownership Dispute, Mortgage Fraud
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Temporary Injunction Status Quo Ante Eviction Ownership Dispute Mortgage Fraud

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raymond Focus Mlay

Applicant

KCB Bank Tanzania

1st Respondent

Dooreen Huruma Mawole also known as Doreen Albert Temu

2nd Respondent

Evans General Traders

3rd Respondent

MEM Auctioneers & General Brokers Ltd

4th Respondent

Furahini Joseph Lema

5th Respondent

Saimon Onesmo Stephen (Principal Officer of 6th respondent)

6th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Application for Temporary Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining respondents from interfering with the suit property pending determination of Land Case No. 126 of 2021
  2. 2 Whether the applicant will suffer irreparable injury if injunction is not granted
  3. 3 Whether balance of convenience favors granting the injunction

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant established a prima facie case, demonstrated irreparable injury, and balance of convenience favors him; status quo ante must be restored, and respondents must vacate the premises pending determination of the main suit.

Court Disposition

Application granted with costs to be borne by 5th and 6th respondents.

Orders

  • 5th and 6th respondents to vacate disputed premises immediately.
  • Respondents and anyone acting on their behalf restrained from interfering with suit premises pending determination of Land Case No. 126 of 2021.