z a s investment co ltd vs equity bank t ltd another 2023 tzhccomd 58 2 march 2023

z a s investment co ltd vs equity bank t ltd another 2023 tzhccomd 58 2 march 2023

The Respondents' counter affidavit was substantially defective for failing to respond to the Applicant's affidavit, rendering it a nullity. The overriding objective principle cannot rescue such defects nor permit filing a fresh counter affidavit. The defective counter affidavit cannot be acted upon, and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
z a s investment co ltd vs equity bank t ltd another 2023 tzhccomd 58 2 march 2023
Parties
Applicant: Z.A.S Investment Company Limited; 1st Respondent: Equity Bank Tanzania Limited; 2nd Respondent: Equity Bank Kenya Limited
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
2 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Commercial Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
Preliminary Objection sustained; defective counter affidavit struck out; application uncontested but not granted at this stage.
Legal Topics
Affidavit Defects, Injunctions, Procedural Compliance
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Affidavit Defects Injunctions Procedural Compliance

Source-derived case record

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Z.A.S Investment Company Limited

Applicant

Equity Bank Tanzania Limited

1st Respondent

Equity Bank Kenya Limited

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondents' counter affidavit is defective and can be acted upon
  2. 2 Whether Respondents can be allowed to argue the application based on Applicant's affidavit
  3. 3 Whether overriding objective principle allows filing fresh counter affidavit

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondents' counter affidavit was substantially defective for failing to respond to the Applicant's affidavit, rendering it a nullity. The overriding objective principle cannot rescue such defects nor permit filing a fresh counter affidavit. The defective counter affidavit cannot be acted upon, and the application is uncontested at this stage.

Court Disposition

Preliminary Objection sustained; defective counter affidavit struck out; application uncontested but not granted at this stage.

Orders

  • Each party to bear its own costs.
  • Date to be fixed for hearing the Applicant on her application.