sanyou service station limited vs bank of baroda tanzania limited others 2022 tzca 387 20 june 2022

sanyou service station limited vs bank of baroda tanzania limited others 2022 tzca 387 20 june 2022

The Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction in revision proceedings to investigate the conduct of parties or take evidence regarding the mandate of the second respondent; such issues require an appropriate forum for evidence-taking. The application is not maintainable and must be struck out.

Citation
sanyou service station limited vs bank of baroda tanzania limited others 2022 tzca 387 20 june 2022
Parties
Applicant: Sanyou Service Station Limited; 1st Respondent: Bank of Baroda Tanzania Limited; 2nd Respondent: Charles R.B. Rwechungura; 3rd Respondent: TSN Oil Limited
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
20 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Application for Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision
Outcome
Application struck out with costs
Legal Topics
Revision Proceedings, Receivership, Consent Judgment, Locus Standi, Jurisdiction
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Revision Proceedings Receivership Consent Judgment Locus Standi Jurisdiction

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 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sanyou Service Station Limited

Applicant

Bank of Baroda Tanzania Limited

1st Respondent

Charles R.B. Rwechungura

2nd Respondent

TSN Oil Limited

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application for Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second respondent had mandate of the applicant during the relevant period
  2. 2 Whether the complaints against the second respondent can be resolved by way of revision

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction in revision proceedings to investigate the conduct of parties or take evidence regarding the mandate of the second respondent; such issues require an appropriate forum for evidence-taking. The application is not maintainable and must be struck out.

Court Disposition

Application struck out with costs

Orders

  • Application struck out
  • Costs awarded to respondents