sogea satom company vs barclays bank tanzania 2 others 2022 tzhc 475 2 march 2022

sogea satom company vs barclays bank tanzania 2 others 2022 tzhc 475 2 march 2022

The High Court cannot review its own Deputy Registrar's orders by way of reference under Order XLI and section 77 of the Civil Procedure Code; the application was improperly brought and there were no conflicting orders between Deputy Registrars Massam and Fovo.

Citation
sogea satom company vs barclays bank tanzania 2 others 2022 tzhc 475 2 march 2022
Parties
Applicant: Sogea Satom Company; 1st Respondent: Barclays Bank Tanzania; 2nd Respondent: DB Shapriya & Co. Limited; 3rd Respondent: Santana Investment Limited
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
2 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Reference / Ruling
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Reference Proceedings, Execution of Decree, Attachment of Property, Jurisdiction of High Court, Court Orders
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Reference Proceedings Execution of Decree Attachment of Property Jurisdiction of High Court Court 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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sogea Satom Company

Applicant

Barclays Bank Tanzania

1st Respondent

DB Shapriya & Co. Limited

2nd Respondent

Santana Investment Limited

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Civil Reference / Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court can review orders of its Deputy Registrar by way of reference under Order XLI and section 77 of the Civil Procedure Code
  2. 2 Whether there were conflicting orders between Deputy Registrar Massam and Deputy Registrar Fovo
  3. 3 Legality of continued attachment and release of equipment after postponement order

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court cannot review its own Deputy Registrar's orders by way of reference under Order XLI and section 77 of the Civil Procedure Code; the application was improperly brought and there were no conflicting orders between Deputy Registrars Massam and Fovo.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Ruling delivered; application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and improper procedure.