Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Tanzania decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The High Court of Tanzania granted a six-month extension for an official liquidator to continue winding up Retrus Tanzania Ltd and file his report.
The court held that while a board resolution is required for institution of a suit by a company, there is no legal requirement that such resolution must precede the issuance of the 90 days’ notice to the government. The notice is not the institution of the suit but a procedural step, and the defendants’ acknowledgment of receipt of the notice satisfied the statutory requirement. The preliminary objections did not meet the threshold of pure points of law and were devoid of merit.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that Chen Kai’s removal as director and secretary of Salina Drinks Company Ltd was irregular and unfairly prejudicial, and ordered reinstatement.
The High Court granted limited letters of administration for collection and preservation of an estate, but refused prayers to transfer shares and assume company management powers.
The High Court granted the liquidator six more months to complete winding up of Access Medical & Dialysis Centre Ltd, finding reasonable grounds for delay.
The High Court lifted the corporate veil of the respondent company and held its managing director personally liable for a neglected decretal debt.
The High Court granted Tanzania Mortgage Refinance Co. Ltd an additional 90 days to complete a share issuance exercise after it missed the original deadline.
The applicant lacked locus standi to seek interim orders regarding assets owned by Reef Gold Limited, a separate corporate entity. Jurisdictional issues such as locus standi can be determined without formal pleadings, and the parties were fully heard. Clerical and editorial errors in the ruling were immaterial and did not affect substantive rights. No new evidence or fraud was established to justify review. The application for review was incompetent and demerited.
Source excerpt
The consent judgment was set aside on the ground of fraud because the 3rd defendant, who signed the deed of settlement on behalf of the plaintiff, was not a director, secretary, or principal officer duly authorized to bind the company. There was no evidence of authority, and acts by unauthorized persons cannot bind the company. Fraud was thus established, rendering the consent judgment void ab initio.
Source excerpt
The plaint was not signed and verified by a person authorized under the law, as Peter Omahe Makere was not a director or principal officer of the plaintiff according to the official company records. This defect is fundamental and vitiates the entire suit, leaving nothing for the court to try. The overriding objective principle cannot cure this mandatory procedural defect.
Source excerpt
Explore more
