singida sisal products general supply vs rofa general trading ltd others 2018 tzhccomd 95 5 july 2018

singida sisal products general supply vs rofa general trading ltd others 2018 tzhccomd 95 5 july 2018

Where the applicant is a non-juristic person, the proceedings cannot stand and must be dismissed, as there is no competent party to amend or refile the application.

Citation
singida sisal products general supply vs rofa general trading ltd others 2018 tzhccomd 95 5 july 2018
Parties
Applicant: Singida Sisal Products & General Supply; 1st Respondent: Rofal General Trading Limited; 2nd Respondent: Gikuru Company Limited; 3rd Respondent: Sensitive Auction Mart & Court Broker; 4th Respondent: Awadhi Zuberi Athumani; 5th Respondent: Winston Baruti
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
5 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Review / Ruling on Review Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Juristic Person, Striking Out Vs Dismissal, Amendment of Pleadings, Execution of Decree
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Juristic Person Striking Out Vs Dismissal Amendment of Pleadings Execution of Decree

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Singida Sisal Products & General Supply

Applicant

Rofal General Trading Limited

1st Respondent

Gikuru Company Limited

2nd Respondent

Sensitive Auction Mart & Court Broker

3rd Respondent

Awadhi Zuberi Athumani

4th Respondent

Winston Baruti

5th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Review / Ruling on Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court erred in dismissing the application instead of striking it out after finding the applicant was a non-juristic person
  2. 2 Whether amendment should have been allowed to substitute the proprietor's name
  3. 3 Whether the application should have been considered on merits after deposit of money

Ratio Decidendi

Where the applicant is a non-juristic person, the proceedings cannot stand and must be dismissed, as there is no competent party to amend or refile the application.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Commercial Review No. 17 of 2017 is dismissed with costs to the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents