EFFCO Tanzania Limited vs Sarens N.V & Another (Civil Application No. 555 of 2026) [2026] TZCA 434 (21 April 2026)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT PAR ES SALAAM CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 555 OF 2026 EFFCO TANZANIA LIMITED APPLICANT VERSUS SARENS N.V 1ST RESPONDENT SARENS SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) 2ND RESPONDENT (An Application for stay of execution of the Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Tanzania at Dar - es - salaam) (Bweqoqe, J.) dated the 18th day of December, 2025 in 21st April, 2026 MURUKE. J.A.: The two respondents, instituted Civil Case No 27827 of 2023 at the High Court at Dar es salaam, against the applicant which was determined in their favor on 18th December 2023. The applicant was dissatisfied, thus filed a Notice of Appeal on 15th January, 2026 and applied for copy of proceedings yet to be supplied. Pending filing of intended appeal, the respondents, on 19th of March 2026, served the applicant with an application for execution Civil Case No. 27827 of 2022 RULING

and summons to appear for hearing of Civil Application No 5263 of 2026 for enforcement of the decree of the High Court. After being served with the notice of execution, the applicant, moved this Court to stay execution of the decree dated 18th December, 2025 in Civil Case No 27827 of 2023, pending hearing of intended appeal. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by Mr. Elimringi Mtui, the applicant's principal officer, articulating reasons for staying execution proceedings. The respondents filed affidavit in reply sworn by Mr. Michael Dewart the respondent's principal officer to oppose the application. At hearing of the application, Mr Gerald Nangi, learned counsel represented the applicant, whereas Mr. Fikiri Liganga also learned counsel, appeared representing the respondents. The applicant's counsel informed the Court that the applicant has filed notice of appeal annexure A-2, attached to the affidavit in support of Notice of Motion. The applicant was served with the notice of hearing of the execution of the decree, Misc Civil Application No. 5263 of 2026, same is before the Deputy Registrar, set for hearing on 25th May, 2026, annexture A-3. It was further submitted that at Paragraph 5 of the affidavit in support 2

of the application, the respondent seeks enforcement of the decretal sum of TZS 200,000,000 and delivery of the crawler crane make SUMITOMO SCX2000, with serial No. SC200-6004 registration No T722 to the first respondent. Mr Nangi amplified the decree sought to be executed is very substantial, forming the applicant's capital and if achieved will lead to a complete shutdown of the applicant's operation to the detriment of its employees and operations within Tanzania. The applicant submitted further that the respondents are foreign entities without presence, asset or business in Tanzania, and if execution is allowed to proceed, while the appeal is pending, the applicant may likely not recover anything should the intended appeal succeed. The applicant is ready to furnish security within 90 days with the Court, to guarantee respondent's dues in case the applicant loose her appeal, insisted the applicants counsel. At the onset, the respondent's counsel informed the Court that he is not objecting to the application subject to furnishing security upon Court considering the following factors: one; the security should be compatible with the decree applicant intend to appeal. Two; the kind of security should be the one which could not put the respondents into difficulties or impossibility of realizing the decree in case the intended appeal fails. 3

The respondent counsel further submitted that the decree sought to be challenged contains monetary relief of 200,000,000 TZS, and none monetary relief by surrendering possession of the Machine in dispute to the first respondent in a worth conditions. More so, 90 days requested by the applicant are just too much, instead 30 days are sufficient. Mr Liganga further submitted that in the alternative, the machine be put in an free zone and secured place for both the applicant and the respondents to be able to take care and maintain stutas quo jointly. In rejoinder, Mr Nangi submitted that issue of free secured area for machine is not in the reply affidavit, more so, the machine is under the care of the third party not party to this suit. Thus, prayer of handling the machine to the first respondent or put in a secure place owned by both parties is not possible. From the nature of the dispute and issues involved, 90 days requested is for applicant preparations. Having heard in brief both counsel's submission, examined the Notice of Motion, and affidavits for and against the application, the issue for determination is whether the applicant has satisfied the condition for granting orders sought.

First; the applicant filed Notice of Appeal annexure A-2 attached to the affidavit in support of the application, two; filed present application within 14 days in compliance with Rule 11 (4) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules 2009 (the Rules) as notice of hearing of execution was served to the applicants on 19th March,2026. Three; the applicant has averred at paragraph 6 that, she will suffer substantial loss if execution will proceed. Four; at paragraph 8 of the affidavit in support of the application the applicant has undertaken to furnish security in compliance with Rule 11 (5) (b) of the Rules. Five; indeed amount to be executed is subject of the intended appeal in which applicant is yet to be supplied with the proceedings in terms of annexures A-2 attached to affidavit at paragraph 3 of affidavit in support of the application. The respondent counsel has submitted that the applicant be ordered to deposit tangible security that respondent can easily realize the decree, in case the applicant loose the intended appeal. I agree with Mr. Liganga's submission, that security is necessary and should be compatible with the decree that applicant intend to appeal. More so, the kind of security should be the one which could not put the respondents into difficulties or impossibility of realizing the decree, in case the intended appeal fails. 5

The above notwithstanding, it is settled law that there is no requirement of depositing security before grant of the order of stay, a mere undertaking to furnish security suffices, as no particular form of security is required, as was held in the case of Mantrac Tanzania Limited v. Raymond Costa, Civil Application No. 11 of 2010 (unreported) where the Court discussed the mode of depositing security and stated as follows: "To meet this condition the iaw does not strictly demand that the said security must be given prior to the grant o f Stay order. To us, a firm undertaking by the applicant to provide security might prove sufficient to move the Court a thing being equal to grant the stay order provided the Court sets a reasonable time limit within which the applicant should give the same". Taking all the circumstances of this application in to account, and in order to prevent the intended appeal from being rendered nugatory, in terms of the Notice of appeal annexture A2, dated 15 January,2026 attached to the affidavit in support of the application and on the balance of convenience, decree in Civil Case No. 27827 of 2023, dated 18 December, 2025 is hereby stayed. The applicant shall deposit bank guarantee on the decretal sum of

TZS 500,000,000 within 90 days from the date of the ruling and serve the respondent's counsel within seven days from the date thereof, to ensure compliance. Ordered accordingly. DATED at DAR ES SALAAM this 21s t day of April, 2026. Z. G. MURUKE JUSTICE OF APPEAL The Ruling delivered this 21s t day of April, 2026 via virtual Court, in the presence of Mr. Gerald Nangi, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Fikiri Liganga learned counsel for the respondent and Ms. Nise Mwasalemba, Court Clerk; is hereby certified as a true copy of the original.