BUMACO Insurance Company Limited vs Abbas Ramadhan Mkindi & Others (Civil Application No. 511 of 2026) [2026] TZCA 438 (27 April 2026)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DODOMA. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 511 OF 2026 BUMACO INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED .............................. APPLICANT VERSUS ABBAS RAMADHAN MKINDI........................................... 1 st RESPONDENT BAKARI HUSEIN HARU.................... . ............................. 2N D RESPONDENT BLASIO BLASTO MAKUNDI T/A BM COACH .............. . 3 rd RESPONDENT [Application for stay of execution arising from the Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Tanzania at Arusha] ( Mwaseba, J.) dated the 19th day of December, 2025 in Civil Appeal No. 8214 of 2025 RULING. Iff* & 27t hApril, 2026 MWAMPASHI, J.A.: In this application, the applicant herein, Bumaco Insurance Company Limited, prays for the execution of the decree of the High Court of Tanzania at Arusha, in Civil Appeal No. 8214 of 2025, to be stayed pending the hearing and final determination of its pending appeal. The application is by way of a notice of motion and is predicated upon rule 11 (3), (4), (4A), (5), (6) and (7) as well as rule 48 (1), both of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 (the Rules). In support of the application, there is an affidavit sworn on 17.03.2026 by Emmanuel Njama, the Principal Officer of the applicant's company.

When the application came before me for hearing, the applicant was represented by Mr. Adrian Mhina, learned advocate, whereas Mr. Jackson Msuya, learned advocate, represented the 1st respondent. The 2n d and 3r d respondents had the services of Mr. Nesto Mkoba, also learned advocate. At the outset, before the hearing could commence, Messrs. Msuya and Mkoba intimated that they are not resisting the application provided the applicant furnishes security by depositing a bank guarantee to the tune of the decreed amount, that is, TZS. 208,380,778.00. Mr. Mhina happily welcomed the concession by his learned friends. He intimated that, as deponed in the supporting affidavit, the applicant is ready, able and willing to deposit a bank guarantee as security for the due performance of the decree as may ultimately be binding upon it. He thus implored upon me to grant the application as prayed in the notice of motion. The power of the Court to order stay of execution of a decree or order is discretional and is derived from rule 11 (3) of the Rules which states that: "11. -(3)In any civilproceedings, where a notice o f appeal has been lodged in accordance with rule 83, an appeal, shall not operate as a stay of execution of the decree or order appealed from nor shall execution o f a decree be stayed by

reason only of an appeal having been preferred from the decree or order; but the Court, may upon good cause shown, order stay of execution of such decree or order". [Emphasis added] For an application for stay of execution of a decree or order to succeed, good cause must be shown and there are three conditions as provided under rule 11 (4) and (5) of the Rules, which should be cumulatively fulfilled. The three conditions are: One, the application must have been filed within 14 days as required by rule 11 (4) of the Rules; Two, it must be shown that substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the stay order is made and three, security for the due performance of such decree or order as may ultimately be binding upon the applicant must be given. See - National Housing Corporation v. A. C. Gomes (1997) Limited [2010] TZCA 168, Joseph Anthony Soares @ Goha v. Hussein Omary [2013] TZCA 328 and Bahati Moshi Masabila t/a Ndono Filling Station v. Hamis Maganga Kilongozi [2024] TZCA 88. Further, in terms of rule 11 (7) of the Rules, for an application for stay of execution to be competent it must be accompanied by copies of a notice of appeal, a decree or order appealed from, a judgment or ruling appealed from and a notice of the intended execution.

In view of the concession by Messrs. Msuya and Mkoba and having examined the notice of motion, the supporting affidavit and the documents accompanying the application and further having considered the factors and conditions for the grant of a stay of execution, I am satisfied that this application is meritorious. The applicant has complied with rule 11 (4), (5) and (7) of the Rules. First of all, in terms of rule 11 (7) of the Rules, the application is accompanied by copies of all the required documents. The application was also filed within 14 days as required by rule 11 (4) of the Rules as the applicant was made aware of the existence of an application for execution on 12.03.2026 and the application was filed on 18.03.2026 well within the prescribed period of limitation. Further, in paragraph 10 of the supporting affidavit it is deponed how the applicant is likely to suffer substantial loss should the pending appeal succeed and in case the execution of the decree is not stayed. The applicant is also ready, able and willing to deposit a bank guarantee as security as deponed under paragraph 11 of the supporting affidavit Based on the above, I find the application meritorious and grant it accordingly. The execution of the decree of the High Court of Tanzania at Arusha issued on 19.12.2025, in Civil Appeal No. 8214 of 2025, is hereby stayed pending the hearing and final determination of the applicant's

appeal. The stay order is however, conditional upon the applicant depositing in Court a bank guarantee to the tune of TZS. 208,380,778.00 within thirty (30) days from the date of this order. Costs in the cause. It is so ordered. DATED at DODOMA this 27th day of April, 2026. A. M. MWAMPASHI JUSTICE OF APPEAL Ruling delivered Virtually this 27th day of April, 2026 in the presence of the Mr. Emmanuel Njama, Company Secretary for the applicant, Nesto Mkoba, learned counsel for the 2n d and 3r d respondents, in the absence of the 1s t respondent and Mr. Shabani Kanyat, Court Clerk; Court is hereby