yusuphu hamisi kitumbo vs maendeleo bankt limited another 2022 tzhccomd 1 31 august 2022

yusuphu hamisi kitumbo vs maendeleo bankt limited another 2022 tzhccomd 1 31 august 2022

The applicant, being a party to the main case, cannot rely on Order XXI rule 57(1) & (2) CPC, which is intended for third parties. The cited provisions do not empower the court to grant the orders sought. The applicant was aware of the proceedings and has not shown sufficient cause to warrant lifting the attachment or postponing the sale. The application is an abuse of process and lacks merit.

Citation
yusuphu hamisi kitumbo vs maendeleo bankt limited another 2022 tzhccomd 1 31 august 2022
Parties
Applicant: Yusuphu Hamisi Kitumbo; 1st Respondent: Maendeleo Bank (T) Limited; 2nd Respondent: Memo Company Limited
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
31 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Commercial Application / Ruling on Application to Lift Attachment and Postpone Sale Pending Determination of Other Applications
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Attachment of Property, Stay of Execution, Abuse of Process, Overriding Objective, Jurisdictional Provisions
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Attachment of Property Stay of Execution Abuse of Process Overriding Objective Jurisdictional Provisions

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yusuphu Hamisi Kitumbo

Applicant

Maendeleo Bank (T) Limited

1st Respondent

Memo Company Limited

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Commercial Application / Ruling on Application to Lift Attachment and Postpone Sale Pending Determination of Other Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause to warrant lifting of attachment and postponement of sale of property pending determination of other applications
  2. 2 Whether the cited legal provisions empower the court to grant the orders sought

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant, being a party to the main case, cannot rely on Order XXI rule 57(1) & (2) CPC, which is intended for third parties. The cited provisions do not empower the court to grant the orders sought. The applicant was aware of the proceedings and has not shown sufficient cause to warrant lifting the attachment or postponing the sale. The application is an abuse of process and lacks merit.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Applicant to pay costs