Wengert Windrose Safaris (Tanzania) Limited v Minister for Natural Resources and Tourism & Anor (Misc Commercial Cause No. 89 of 2016) [2016] TZHCComD 41; (06 June 2016)

Subject Matter: 

The main case was whether the issue before this court was directly and substantially in issue with a matter pending in the court below.

The respondent threatened the applicant to cease any operations and vacate a Lake Natron game controlled area it currently occupies (‘the hunting block’). The applicant filed this application, seeking this court to issue an interim order restraining the respondents from evicting them at the hunting block.

The respondent claimed that this court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain this matter as it was res sub judice, and thus should be dismissed. The reason lodged was that the issue in this matter was directly and substantially related to the pending appeal. The applicant argued against these claims and contended that in the pending appeal, he was challenging different issues in relation to this application.

This court applied s 8 of the Civil Procedure Code in determining that the facts and circumstances of this application where identical with the pending matter below, and as such res sub judice.

This application was stayed pending the outcome of the appeal in the court below. 

Symbion Power LLC v Salem Construction Limited (Misc Commercial Cause No. 26 of 2016) [2016] TZHCComD 38; (30 June 2016)

Subject Matter: 

Two distinct, but related cases are of relevance in showing the genesis of this application.

The first relates to the respondent seeking to enforce a contract of works. The second relates to the applicant’s claim to enforce an agreement to arbitrate (as per the contract agreement). In this application before the High Court, the applicant sought to have the former case stayed, pending the final determination of the latter.

The applicant claimed that he sought the order to stay the suit as there was an agreement to arbitrate; proceeding with the respondent’s claim would be nugatory. The respondent resisted this application on the basis of procedural correctness.

This court determined that the issue was to verify whether this court had jurisdiction to entertain an application for stay of the respondent’s case, in view of the notice of appeal that was instituted by the applicant.

It was held that this court lacks jurisdiction over the latter case; it is the Court of Appeal which holds jurisdiction. Therefore, the matter was dismissed in its entirety.