Post on 07-Apr-2018
8/3/2019 Case Not 2010 Decisions
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/case-not-2010-decisions 1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA
(COMMERICLA DIVISION)
AT DAR ES SALAAM
COMMERCIAL CASE NO. 5 OF 2010
JUMA OMARY MGAZA………………………………………………………….PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
NBC LIMITED………………………………………………………………..1ST DEFENDANT
IMMA ADVOCATES………………………...…………………………….2ND DEFENDANTS
MAJEMBE AUCTION MART LIMITED…………………………………3RD DEFENDANTS
RULING BY Hon. Makaramba J.
The ruling was delivered on 9/08/2010.
Law of Civil Procedure: Cause of action- for a plaintiff to be entitled to a relief against
the defendant he/she must show facts attributable to the defendant which have caused
some injury to the plaintiff.
Law of Civil Procedure- Where a plaint does not disclose a cause of action it must be
rejected.
Briefly:
The plaintiff had failed to service his overdraft advanced to him by the 1st defendant. He
brought the suit against the defendant, inter-alia praying for a decree and order that he
was entitled to a Government support under its economic rescue plan, waiver o f the
interest since 2008 and order plaintiffs to pay only600, 000 as an overdraft facility.
8/3/2019 Case Not 2010 Decisions
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/case-not-2010-decisions 2/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA
(COMMERICLA DIVISION)
AT DAR ES SALAAM
COMMERCIAL CASE NO. 11 OF 2010
MASUMIN PRINTWAYS AND STATIONERS LTD…………………………….PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
THE SAVINGS AND CREDIT COOPERATIVE UNION
LEAGUE OF TANZANIA (1992) LTD………………………………………....DEFENDANT
Judgment by Hon Makaramba J, Delivered on 19/8/2010
Cases Referred:
Davis v. Mohanlal Karamshi Shah (1957) E.A. 352 Angela Mpanduji vs. Ancilla Kilinda (1985) T.L.R 16 (HC)Rugarabamu Archad Mwombeki vs. Charles Kizigha and Three Others (1984) T.L.R.350(HC)The Cooper Motor Corporation Ltd. vs. Moshi/Arusha Occupational Health Services (1990) T.L.R 96 (CA)Eastern Radio Service vs. R.J Patel (1962) E.A. 818 YF Gulan Hussein vs. French Somaliland Shipping Co. LTD (1959) E.A. 25 Dembenictis & Others vs. Central Africa Co. Ltd & another (1967) E.A 310.
Law of Civil Procedure; Order VIII Rule 14(2) (b) of the CPC Cap 33 R.E. 2002;
Where a defendant fails to file a written statement of defense and fails to satisfy the
Court for such failure, the court can not extend time, instead it may, on application by
one part order Ex-parte proof.
Law of Contract: The determination of an award of punitive damages involves a careful
examination of the defendant’s conduct and state of mind at the time of misconduct as
they are used to punish the party at fault in bad faith.
Law of Contract: Assessment of damages cannot be based on unsubstantiated figure.
Law of Contract: where a successful party was deprived of the use of goods or money
by reason of wrongful act on the part of the defendant, the party who has been so
deprived of the use of goods or money to which he is entitled should be compensated
for such deprivation by the award of interest.
8/3/2019 Case Not 2010 Decisions
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/case-not-2010-decisions 3/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA
(COMMERICLA DIVISION)
AT DAR ES SALAAM
COMMERCIAL CASE NO. 29 OF 2010
SUPER CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD…………………………..………………….PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
BLUE FLOWER INVESTMENTS LIMITED
t/a BLUE FLOWER LIMITED LIMITED……………………………………….DEFENDANT
Ruling on an application for stay of proceedings by Hon.Mruma J,
The Law of Civil Procedure: The court will not grant an ex-parte order where the
defendant’s/ respondent’s address is within the courts’ locality; instead it will order a
notice to issue to that defendant.
The arbitration Act, Cap.15 R.E. 2002; Section 6 and Rule 5 of the Arbitration Rules-
Proceedings must be stayed where there is a submission.
The Arbitration Rules; rule 10: Notice to the person likely to be affected by a petition
is mandatory, and reply to a petition is not automatic but subject to a court’s notice
requiring the respondent to show cause why the reliefs sought should not be granted.
Where service /notice of a petition is effected without Court’s Order to that effect, the
respondent cannot be quizzed by the court to explain his delays to file a reply to the
petition within 21 days of service.
The Law of Civil Procedure: The 21 days rule for filing an answer to the claim does
not apply to the proceedings under the Arbitration Act.
The law of civil procedure: The Court cannot act on a defective application or
document.
Briefly: Basically there was a claim of breach of contract and prayers for damagestogether with moneys payable under a construction work agreement. The Defendant
applied for a stay of proceedings pending arbitration and while pending the application,
the plaintiff brought an application for injunction against the defendant. The court
ordered stay of the application for injunction and issued an order of maintaining the
status quo, whereby it dealt with the petition for stay. The petition for stay was found
incompetent and defective on procedural grounds and hence struck out.
8/3/2019 Case Not 2010 Decisions
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/case-not-2010-decisions 4/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA
(COMMERICLA DIVISION)
AT DAR ES SALAAM
COMMERCIAL CASE NO. 7 OF 2010
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL…………………………………..………………….PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
M/S DENGARD SYSTEM (T) LTD…………………………………………….DEFENDANT
Ex-parte Judgment by Hon. Makaramba, J.
Law of Contract: A claim for general damages must be substantiated by concrete
evidence.
Briefly:
The Ministry of infrastructure Development (formerly the ministry of works) entered into
a contract with the defendant for installation of ticket vending and validating machines at
the Magogoni/Kigamboni Ferry in Dar es Salaam. But the defendant delayed in
completion of the obligations as stipulated in the contract hence the suit, and ultimately
the ex-parte judgment since, despite attempts to serve the defendants and eventually
substituted services were futile.
8/3/2019 Case Not 2010 Decisions
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/case-not-2010-decisions 5/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA
(COMMERICLA DIVISION)
AT DAR ES SALAAM
COMMERCIAL CASE NO.20 OF 2010
AFRICAN BANKING CORPORATION TANZANIA LIMITED.……………….PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
M/NASSOR AND COMPANY LIMITED……………………………………….DEFENDANT
Ex-parte Judgment by Hon. Mruma, J.
The law of Civil procedure: An application for setting aside an order for ex-parte proof
cannot be granted where it has already been overtaken by events(i.e. at the pendencyof judgment),since ,if granted it would amount to arresting the pending judgment.
Briefly;
The parties had entered not a lease facility secured by both floating and fixed charges.
The Defendant defaulted to service the facility and hence this suit to recover the
amount. The defendant could defend the suit against it due to failure to file his written
statement of defense and his application for setting aside an to ex-parte proof was
rejected for it having been overtaken by events.
8/3/2019 Case Not 2010 Decisions
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/case-not-2010-decisions 6/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA
(COMMERICLA DIVISION)
AT DAR ES SALAAM
MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL CASE NO.5 OF 2010
IN THE MATER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR ORDERS OF
CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER GENERAL
TANZANIA REVENUE AUTHORITY AND COMMISSIONER FOR CUSTOMS AND
EXCISE DATED 16TH FEBRUARY,2005 AND 23RD FEBRUARY 2005
BETWEEN
ISLAM SALEHE NAHDI LIMITED………………………..……………………..APPLICANT
AND
THE COMMISSIONER GENERAL
TANZANIA REVENUE AUTHORITY……………………..…..………..…1ST DEFENDANT
THE COMMISSIONER FOR CUTOMS AND EXCISE…………….……2ND DEFENDANT
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL……………………………………………...3RD DEFENDNAT
Ruling delivered by Makaramba, J.
A ruling on reserved reasons on the Preliminary objection against an application for
leave to apply for prerogative orders out of time.
Cases referred:
NBC LIMITED VS. PARTNERS CONSTRUCTION CO.LTD Civil Appeal
No.34/2003(DSM) (Unreported)
8/3/2019 Case Not 2010 Decisions
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/case-not-2010-decisions 7/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA
(COMMERCIAL DIVISION)
AT DAR ES SALAAM
COMMERCIAL CASE NO.11 OF 2010
MASUMIN PRINTWAYS & STATIONERS LTD…………….…..……….... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
THE SAVINGS AND CREDIT COOPERATIVE UNION
LEAGUE OF TANZANIA (1992) LTD……………………………………..…DEFENDANT
Judgment delivered by Makaramba J.
Cases referred:
Eastern Radio Service V. R.J Patel (1962) E.A 818
Y.F Gulan Hussein Vs. French Somaliland Shipping Co Ltd [1959] E.A 25
The Cooper Motor Corporation Ltd. Vs. Moshi/Arusha Occupational Health Services
[1990] T.L.R. 96 (CA).
Law of Contract: where a successful party was deprived of the use of goods or money
by reason of wrongful act on the part of the defendant, the party who has been sodeprived of the use of goods or money to which he is entitled should be compensated
for such deprivation by the award of interest.
Law of Contract: Assessment of damages cannot be based on unsubstantiated
figures.
Law of contract: General damages need not be specifically pleaded and may be asked
for by a mere statement or prayer of claim.
Briefly.
The Defendant, ordered from the Plaintiff and was supplied with goods worth
Tshs.43,613,072/= and that the Defendant paid only Tshs.13,316,152/=. Defendant has
not paid the remaining balance of Tshs. 30,297,920/= despite being reminded by the
Plaintiff to pay the said balance.