shose sinare vs stanbic bank tanzania limited another 2021 tzca 476 16 september 2021

shose sinare vs stanbic bank tanzania limited another 2021 tzca 476 16 september 2021

The High Court erred by prematurely determining the issue of absolute immunity as a preliminary objection, which required factual investigation. It also erred by deciding on cause of action against the first respondent without it being raised or argued, thus denying parties fair hearing.

Citation
shose sinare vs stanbic bank tanzania limited another 2021 tzca 476 16 september 2021
Parties
Appellant: Shose Sinare; 1st Respondent: Stanbic Bank Tanzania Limited; 2nd Respondent: ICBC Standard Bank PLC (formerly Standard Bank PLC)
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
16 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Absolute Immunity, Preliminary Objections, Cause of Action, Jurisdiction, Fair Hearing
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Defamation Employment Law Absolute Immunity Preliminary Objections Cause of Action Jurisdiction Fair Hearing

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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shose Sinare

Appellant

Stanbic Bank Tanzania Limited

1st Respondent

ICBC Standard Bank PLC (formerly Standard Bank PLC)

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether absolute immunity under English law applies to statements made by the second respondent to the SFO and Crown Court.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court erred in determining the issue of cause of action against the first respondent as a preliminary objection.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred by prematurely determining the issue of absolute immunity as a preliminary objection, which required factual investigation. It also erred by deciding on cause of action against the first respondent without it being raised or argued, thus denying parties fair hearing.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Ruling of the High Court set aside.
  • Record remitted to the High Court for determination of Civil Case No. 34 of 2016 according to law.