CIVIL APPLICATIN NO 621 17 OF 2021 S

CIVIL APPLICATIN NO 621 17 OF 2021 S

The application for stay of execution is misconceived because the decree of the High Court was in favour of the applicant and not executable against her; the auction of the mortgaged property by the third respondent is not part of execution of the decree but enforcement of mortgage rights, which is outside the Court's mandate to stay under Rule 11(3).

Citation
CIVIL APPLICATIN NO 621 17 OF 2021 S
Parties
Applicant: S. M. Saeed Limited; 1st Respondent: Corporate Security Ltd; 2nd Respondent: Mrs. Parvis Azad Poonja Bhanji; 3rd Respondent: Equity Bank Tanzania Ltd
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
1 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Mortgage Enforcement, Appeal Procedure
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Property Law Banking Law Stay of Execution Mortgage Enforcement Appeal Procedure

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S. M. Saeed Limited

Applicant

Corporate Security Ltd

1st Respondent

Mrs. Parvis Azad Poonja Bhanji

2nd Respondent

Equity Bank Tanzania Ltd

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for stay of execution is properly before the Court
  2. 2 Whether the decree of the High Court is executable against the applicant
  3. 3 Whether the auction of the mortgaged property is part of execution of the decree

Ratio Decidendi

The application for stay of execution is misconceived because the decree of the High Court was in favour of the applicant and not executable against her; the auction of the mortgaged property by the third respondent is not part of execution of the decree but enforcement of mortgage rights, which is outside the Court's mandate to stay under Rule 11(3).

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • application dismissed
  • costs awarded to respondents