db shapriya co ltd vs leighton offshore pte limited t branch others 2016 tzca 839 12 october 2016

db shapriya co ltd vs leighton offshore pte limited t branch others 2016 tzca 839 12 october 2016

The Court of Appeal refrains from exercising revisional jurisdiction where an alternative remedy by way of suit exists under Order XXI Rule 62 of the Civil Procedure Code, even if the order sought to be impugned is erroneous, following established precedent.

Citation
db shapriya co ltd vs leighton offshore pte limited t branch others 2016 tzca 839 12 october 2016
Parties
Plaintiff/decree Holder: D.B. Shapriya & Co. Ltd; Defendant/judgment Debtor: Leighton Offshore PTE Limited (T) Branch; Necessary Party: Tanzania Ports Authority; Interested Party: Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Works, Transport and Communications; Interested Party: Hon. Attorney General
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
12 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Revision / Ruling on Preliminary Objections to Revisional Proceedings
Outcome
Preliminary objections partially upheld; revisional proceedings declined.
Legal Topics
Revisional Jurisdiction, Execution Proceedings, Alternative Remedies, Garnishee Orders
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Execution of Judgments Revisional Jurisdiction Execution Proceedings Alternative Remedies Garnishee Orders

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

Parties

D.B. Shapriya & Co. Ltd

Plaintiff/decree Holder

Leighton Offshore PTE Limited (T) Branch

Defendant/judgment Debtor

Tanzania Ports Authority

Necessary Party

Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Works, Transport and Communications

Interested Party

Hon. Attorney General

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Revision / Ruling on Preliminary Objections to Revisional Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal has revisional jurisdiction over execution matters under section 38(1) of the Civil Procedure Code
  2. 2 Whether the decision sought to be revised is interlocutory and thus not revisable
  3. 3 Whether the existence of an alternative remedy under Order XXI Rule 62 of the Civil Procedure Code precludes revision

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal refrains from exercising revisional jurisdiction where an alternative remedy by way of suit exists under Order XXI Rule 62 of the Civil Procedure Code, even if the order sought to be impugned is erroneous, following established precedent.

Court Disposition

Preliminary objections partially upheld; revisional proceedings declined.

Orders

  • Court refrains from exercising revisional jurisdiction; matter left as it was before the proceedings; no order as to costs.