stanbic bank t ltd vs nam enterprises ltd others 2017 tzhccomd 2 23 june 2017

stanbic bank t ltd vs nam enterprises ltd others 2017 tzhccomd 2 23 june 2017

The defendants' and their counsel's failure to appear or communicate with the court on the scheduled hearing date constituted failure to prosecute their defence. The court, applying the relevant procedural rules, marked the defence as closed and allowed the matter to proceed to written submissions.

Citation
stanbic bank t ltd vs nam enterprises ltd others 2017 tzhccomd 2 23 june 2017
Parties
Plaintiff: Stanbic Bank (T) Ltd; 1st Defendant: NAM Enterprises Ltd; 2nd Defendant: Alex Stephen Lukumay; 3rd Defendant: Elias Stephen Lukumay; 4th Defendant: Nammnyaki Stephen Lukumay; 5th Defendant: Stephen Korduni Lukumay
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
23 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Commercial Case / Ruling on Defence Non Appearance and Amendment of Pleadings
Outcome
Defence marked as closed; parties to file written submissions; judgment date fixed.
Legal Topics
Non Appearance of Parties, Amendment of Pleadings, Ex Parte Proceedings, Dismissal of Defence, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Non Appearance of Parties Amendment of Pleadings Ex Parte Proceedings Dismissal of Defence Costs

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stanbic Bank (T) Ltd

Plaintiff

NAM Enterprises Ltd

1st Defendant

Alex Stephen Lukumay

2nd Defendant

Elias Stephen Lukumay

3rd Defendant

Nammnyaki Stephen Lukumay

4th Defendant

Stephen Korduni Lukumay

5th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Case / Ruling on Defence Non Appearance and Amendment of Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants' non-appearance warrants striking out their defence and counterclaim
  2. 2 Whether the amendment to the written statement of defence was permissible under the rules

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants' and their counsel's failure to appear or communicate with the court on the scheduled hearing date constituted failure to prosecute their defence. The court, applying the relevant procedural rules, marked the defence as closed and allowed the matter to proceed to written submissions.

Court Disposition

Defence marked as closed; parties to file written submissions; judgment date fixed.

Orders

  • Defendants' defence marked as closed due to non-appearance.
  • Both parties to file written submissions within 14 days.