|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2009 |
|
|
The applicant's suit for prerogative orders was struck out for failing to obtain the mandatory leave to apply.
* Prerogative remedies – Certiorari, Mandamus, Prohibition – prerequisite of leave before substantive application – non-compliance renders application premature and defective.* Procedural law – substantive requirement versus technicality – leave requirement is substantive and mandatory.* Judicial review procedure – failure to follow leave requirement justifies striking out application with costs.
|
14 December 2009 |
| November 2009 |
|
|
A valid Tanzanian trade mark registration grants exclusive territorial rights; prior use or foreign registration must be proven.
Trade marks — Registration validity — Territoriality of trade mark rights — Proof of prior use — Agency/authorization inconsistencies — Injunctive relief granted; damages and accounting denied for lack of evidence.
|
13 November 2009 |
|
Court granted interim injunction restraining regulator from allocating disputed spectrum pending trial.
Telecommunications law – Spectrum allocation and Application Service Licences; Interim injunction – preservation of status quo; Injunction tests – prima facie case/serious issues, irreparable harm, balance of convenience; Procedural objection – compliance with Order XIX r.3 CPC; Evidentiary weight of admissions and documentary communications (24 April 2007 letter).
|
3 November 2009 |
|
The Commercial Division has jurisdiction over company governance disputes; preliminary objections to jurisdiction and frivolousness were dismissed.
* Commercial jurisdiction – company governance disputes – Commercial Division jurisdiction under High Court Registries Rules and Companies Act. * Civil Procedure – Order VII r.1(i) (value of subject matter) – applicability limited to cases where monetary valuation is possible; Commercial Court (Fees) Rules govern commercial claims. * Cause of action – misappropriation and breach of duty by company officers sufficient under Companies Act. * Civil procedure – objections of frivolousness, abuse of process and multiplicity of causes dismissed where claims relate to company management.
|
2 November 2009 |
| October 2009 |
|
|
The court dismissed preliminary objections, allowing the suit concerning an adjudicator’s decision to proceed on its merits.
Civil Procedure – Preliminary objections – Cause of action, res judicata, party joinder, and procedural defects.
|
23 October 2009 |
|
Applicant awarded container replacement cost; detention, clearing charge and general damages not proved; interest reduced.
Commercial law – clearing and forwarding – claims for demurrage/detention, replacement and clearing charges; burden of proof on claimant; inconsistent invoices undermine claimed sums; general damages require pleading and proof; court reduces excessive interest rates.
|
23 October 2009 |
|
The defendant bank negligently failed to verify account‑opening documents per BoT guidance and is liable for conversion of the plaintiff’s funds.
* Banking law – duty of bank to verify identity, directors and authenticity of company documents when opening accounts – compliance with Bank of Tanzania Circular No. 8 of 2000. * Negligence – banker’s failure to make proper inquiries and follow up referees amounts to negligence; liability for conversion of funds. * Forgery and fraud – third party presenting forged memorandum/articles and false resolution. * Indemnity – bank entitled to be indemnified by fraudulent third party for sums paid to injured customer. * Damages and interest – award of principal, general damages and post‑judgment interest.
|
22 October 2009 |
|
Citing general procedural provisions when specific rules apply renders an interlocutory application incompetent.
* Civil Procedure – Interlocutory relief – Where specific procedural rules (Order XXXVII) apply, general powers under sections 68 and 95 cannot be invoked in their place. * Execution – Sale in execution – Remedy to set aside sale for irregularity located in Order XXI r.88(1). * Procedural competence – Citing wrong enabling provisions renders an application incompetent.
|
5 October 2009 |
| September 2009 |
|
|
The applicant’s extension application citing the wrong statutory provision was incompetent and struck out with costs.
* Civil procedure – extension of time – enabling provision – omission to cite specific subsection (11(1)) – jurisdictional defect – incompetence. * Amendment of pleadings – chamber summons – formal amendment required; court cannot insert omitted statutory subsection sua sponte. * Dispositive jurisdictional defects obviate need to consider substantive merits (delay, illegality, negligence).
|
21 September 2009 |
|
Commencement of exploration terminates annual anniversary payments under a prospecting assignment; Plaintiff’s claim dismissed.
Contract interpretation – prospecting agreement – Article 3: upfront payment and annual anniversary payments until commencement of exploration or abandonment; commencement of exploration terminates annual payment obligation; contemporaneous notice as evidence.
|
18 September 2009 |
|
Applicant’s claim on disputed accounting failed for lack of independent evidence; uncontroverted June 2004 balance awarded with interest.
Sale of goods – Partly written and implied contract; Evidence – failure to call material independent witnesses (TRA/bank) – adverse inference; Civil Procedure Code, Order XIII – documents not produced/admitted are not part of the record (TZR1 expunged); Counterclaim not proved; Award of uncontroverted balance with interest and costs.
|
7 September 2009 |
| August 2009 |
|
|
Whether a bank can obtain ex parte judgment enforcing an overdraft secured by a debenture and personal guarantee.
Commercial law – recovery of overdraft – enforcement of registered debenture and charge; personal Guarantee and Indemnity – director’s joint and several liability; ex parte proof where defendants default; award of contractual and post-judgment interest; costs.
|
10 August 2009 |
| July 2009 |
|
|
High Court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction; joinder of the Attorney General does not automatically confer jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction — pecuniary limits of High Court under Magistrates' Courts Act s40(3); Government Proceedings Act s6(4) — joinder of Attorney General does not confer jurisdiction; Constitutional challenges — procedure under Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act; Requirement to notify State under s6(2) of Government Proceedings Act (raised as objection).
|
3 July 2009 |
| May 2009 |
|
|
Unsigned pleadings are defective under Order VI Rule 14 but are curable by amendment; court ordered advocates to sign within seven days.
Civil procedure — Order VI Rule 14 CPR — Mandatory signature of party and advocate on pleadings — Unsigned pleadings are defective but curable by amendment before judgment — Written statement of defence subject to same requirement.
|
8 May 2009 |
|
Extension of time to appeal refused for lack of material facts and failure to file required written submissions.
* Appellate Jurisdiction Act s.11(1) – extension of time to file notice of appeal – discretionary power requires material facts; * Civil procedure – failure to file written submissions equated to non-appearance; * Rejoinder – inadmissible where no initial submissions exist; * Procedural irregularities – appeals struck out for defective supporting documents.
|
2 May 2009 |
| April 2009 |
|
|
An established company’s long-used name can bar registration and use of a similar name due to likely passing off and public confusion.
* Company names – similarity and passing off – identity, similarity and likelihood of confusion – long use and reputation may give proprietary effect to a company name.
* Registrar powers – refusal/correction of registration where a name would infringe or cause passing off – registrar’s direction to change name proper where oversight occurred.
* Remedies – declaratory relief, permanent injunction, striking off name from register, removal of advertisements, costs.
|
28 April 2009 |
|
Applicant failed to discharge burden to set aside security-for-costs order; proof of local assets and authenticated returns was inadequate.
Security for costs – Order XXV r.1(1) – requirement for credible proof of registered office, local immovable property and authenticated annual returns (BRELA); foreign majority shareholders; risk of piercing corporate veil; discretion to refuse setting aside security order.
|
22 April 2009 |
| March 2009 |
|
|
Court pierced corporate veil, held director jointly liable for dishonoured cheques and awarded principal plus simple commercial interest.
Commercial law – dishonoured cheques; corporate veil – lifting veil to hold director personally liable where company formalities and authorisation not proved; interest – compound interest not awarded absent agreement, simple commercial interest awarded; contract – implied contract by conduct rejected for insufficient evidence; counterclaim dismissed.
|
23 March 2009 |
|
Applicants failed to show good cause; Taxing Master's 3% instruction fee was upheld as not excessive.
Taxation of costs; service and awareness of taxation proceedings; extension of time under s.14 Law of Limitation Act; admissibility and limits of hearsay in affidavits (Order XIX r.3(1)); court's inherent powers under s.95 Civil Procedure Act to review Taxing Master's decisions; interference only for error of principle or manifestly excessive awards; advocate's instruction fee (3%) and discretion of Taxing Master.
|
3 March 2009 |
| February 2009 |
|
|
Bank unlawfully debited joint accounts to secure a third party loan; lien not proved and bank breached duty, damages awarded.
* Banking law – validity of security over deposits – authenticity of lien instrument and handwriting proof.
* Banker–customer duty – duty of care to joint account holders; need to ensure informed consent and independent legal advice when accepting security.
* Evidence – admissibility and weight of forensic handwriting reports; official report formalities and chain of command.
* Remedies – release of wrongfully debited funds with contractual interest; award of punitive and general damages.
|
12 February 2009 |