BD SHAPRIYA CO LTD VS YARA T LTD MISC
The application was overtaken by events as the Advance Payment Guarantees had already been demanded and received by the respondent, rendering the application moot and liable to be struck out.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- BD SHAPRIYA CO LTD VS YARA T LTD MISC
- Parties
- Petitioner: DB Shapriya & Company Ltd; Respondent: Yara Tanzania Limited
- Court
- TANZLII
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 1 January 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Commercial Cause / Ruling on Application for Temporary Injunction
- Outcome
- Application struck out as overtaken by events
- Legal Topics
- Temporary Injunction, Advance Payment Guarantees, Mootness
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
DB Shapriya & Company Ltd
Petitioner
Yara Tanzania Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Commercial Cause / Ruling on Application for Temporary Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for temporary injunction restraining the respondent from demanding and receiving payment on Advance Payment Guarantees is maintainable after the guarantees have already been paid
Ratio Decidendi
The application was overtaken by events as the Advance Payment Guarantees had already been demanded and received by the respondent, rendering the application moot and liable to be struck out.
Court Disposition
Application struck out as overtaken by events
Orders
- Application is struck out with no order as to costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION AT PAR ES SALAAM MISC. COMMERCIAL CAUSE NO. 55 OF 2016 BETWEEN BD SHAPRIYA & COMPANY LTD......................... PETITIONER VERSUS YARA TANZANIA LIMITED.................................. RESPONDENT RULING MRUMA, J: On 24th March 2016, the Applicant DB Shapriya & Co. Limited filed this application seeking for temporary Injunction Orders restraining the Respondent from demanding and receiving payment on the Advance Payment Guarantees pending the hearing and final determination of Commercial Case No. 37 of 2016. The Application was brought under a Certificate of Urgency however, as the records in Commercial case No. 37 of 2016 were called by the Court of Appeal for purposes of determining Revision proceedings which were preferred by the present Respondent it happened that by the time it was heard, the application had already been over taken by events as the Advance Payment Guarantees the Applicants were seeking to restrain the Respondent from demanding and receiving had already been demanded and received by them. i After it was heard, ruling was stayed pending hearing and determination by the Court of Appeal of Civil Application (Revision) No.211 of 2016. That application was struck out by the Court of Appeal on 23rd November, 2016. Now, as stated hereinabove, the Advance Payment Guarantees the subject of this application have already been demanded and received by the Respondents therefore canvassing on the merits and/or dements of this application will only be of academic purposes. In short the present application has been over taken by events. It is struck out with no orders as to the costs. JUDGE 30/08/2018 2