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 held that Chen Kai’s removal as director and secretary of Salina Drinks Company Ltd was irregular and unfairly prejudicial, and ordered reinstatement.
The 1st respondent's exclusion of the petitioners from management, failure to convene meetings, lack of transparency, and unilateral dealings with company assets constituted unfair prejudice to the petitioners' interests as minority shareholders under section 233 of the Companies Act. The petitioners proved their case on the balance of probabilities.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed a petition challenging a 2015 mosque trustees election, holding the dispute was overtaken by events and that internal remedies were not exhausted.
The High Court acquitted four accused persons of 33 counts including forgery, uttering false documents, money laundering, organized crime and pecuniary loss.
The High Court found the respondent’s affairs were unfairly prejudicial to a minority shareholder and ordered access to company records, but refused damages and other broader relief.
The petitioner is the lawful owner of 4,512 fully paid-up shares in the 1st respondent company, the removal as director was not done in accordance with the law and proper procedure, and the respondents' actions were unfairly prejudicial. Reliefs sought for appointment as chairman/managing director, co-signatory rights, audit, dividends, commissions, and injunctions were declined as they are matters for the company or lacked evidentiary basis. The cross-petition lacked merit as the evidence supports the petitioner's shareholding and no proof was provided for the respondents' claims.
Source excerpt
The respondents' conduct in managing the affairs of the 2nd respondent company, including failure to hold meetings, unauthorized appointment of directors and secretary, and acts done without board resolutions, was in contravention of the company's MEMART and the Companies Act, and was unfairly prejudicial to the petitioners. There was no evidence of proper procedure for forfeiture or transfer of shares, nor evidence of a call on shares. The petitioners' membership could not be lawfully stripped, and the respondents' actions amounted to unfair prejudice.
Source excerpt
The respondents' failure to file a verifying affidavit to their answer rendered their factual allegations inadmissible, leaving the petitioners' verified allegations unopposed. The 2nd and 3rd respondents, as resident directors, failed to hold statutory meetings, withheld financial information, and did not comply with statutory requirements, amounting to conduct that was unfairly prejudicial to the petitioners' interests as members under section 233 of the Companies Act. The petition was thus meritorious and appropriate remedies were granted.
Source excerpt
Winding-up petition dismissed after the court found no genuine grounds and held the petitioner lacked clean hands in seeking equitable relief.
The court found that due to the death of two out of three directors, it was impracticable for the company to transact business or convene meetings, justifying the grant of orders to allow the 1st Applicant to convene a shareholders meeting and update company records.
Source excerpt
Explore more
