africa.lawBeta
SearchAsk AICollectionsJudgesCompareMemo
africa.law

Free access to African legal information. Legislation, case law, and regulatory documents from across the continent.

Resources

  • Legislation
  • Gazettes
  • Jurisdictions

Developers

  • API Documentation
  • Bulk Downloads
  • Data Sources
  • GitHub

Company

  • About
  • Contact
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy

Jurisdictions

  • All jurisdictions →

© 2026 africa.law by Bhala. Open legal information for Africa.

Aggregating legal information from official government publications and public legal databases across the continent.

Back to search
Case Law[2000] TZHC 43Tanzania

Tanzania Pharmaceutical Industries Limited vs Philip Contruction & Transport Co. Ltd (Miscallaneous Civil Application No. 99 of 2000) [2000] TZHC 43 (20 November 2000)

High Court of Tanzania

Judgment

, .. ,•·. . . nr Tm: I!IGH comT OF TAltZ/Jil.A .AT liRUST'iA m:scr..LL.AN::ous CIVIL AP?LICATIQ1J . i:iQ, 99 OF 2000 Orig~ from EGCC 7/95 : ... rr•!JiZAlITA PllA,--li>IACDl:JricAL D::l'DlJSTR F~ LTitITED •• o o • o o • ~ .1' • o' .: •• ·• • • • .APPLICANT versus ?TIIL~ CONS'illUCTION & TJ.ri.ASPORT CO. LTD ••••••••••• n •••• i; • ::IES!:ORJENT R U L I N G JUDGE .. n This is a.n applicntion under Order 21 Rule 57,(1) and (2) of the Civil Procodvxe Code, 1966, In this application, th0 Applicant, who is the Jud.cm011t De1Ytor in this com·t' ~ Civil case No-7 of 19• is socld.nc; for . . the folloui1:,2 p:rinci:pa1 order;- t1(,.1,) That the Proclamation of Sale issu.ecl by this ITonourable Court on the 15th dny of 1\ugust, 2000 1 vide Tho 11id1 Co-urt of Ta.nzan:i.a 3,t flIU.sha civil case n';;, 7 of 1995 gainst the Applicant/ Jud1:;i,1ent Dobtor of its fa-ctory on riot No:o 34 Thmi Indus tries .l.rea, ·lu'USh~ by -r.my of Fublic .Auction Scheduled-,,to 1 be held 011.the 15th day of September, 2000, be set asie on the e-rov.nrl of material ir•esuiari ties in jmblishi~- i tn o • · · . u . . The 1csl)ondcmt, who is tho Decree Zolder i;. tho s;:;.ic1·., civil through his l0ar11oa. advo.catos, r~. 1'Iirambo and l\lr, 1::..:o, has ohallen:;ed tl1e competence of this application. case, H is -ha contention of counsel for ·the .1espon¢l.ent 'that this cou.:rt only hc.s jurii:::diction to ontortain,under order 21 1 rule57(1) und (21) OBCTIOH FG'.OCE:::DilifGS, that is, irrvcstir.;a.tions of cla~ms to and learned counsel for the Respondent are further contending that under this rulo, objection i:,:r-oceedings 6an·on1y be broue,ht by third parties to the suit and not by parties thereto. In.~~i?i-to-of Mr .. Makangc 1 ·s (learned cour.sol-' fox the ·Applicant)·· • emphatic SU!)fll.i.ssioh· to tnc effect that even pa..rti.cs to the suit can "avail them.selves of the lemedy unc.er Order ~I Ihil/> ·57 sub,rules (1) and ( 2) of ·bl1c Code;'. I find .tho· contention of Go~cl for tho Respondent to be a co::::;.'cct sto,t0m0ht of the law.. The lew itself is very clear •.. .-

2 .. , ., t • · It vests tho cou:::,ts with jurisdiction to in"'mstif?,;ato c:i_aims or :objecitiorf't..·,,r; . raised B..['Jt:i.11..St the a.ttachmont of 11ropc:rty in c:x:001.1.tj_on o:f' dccre~~ 011·,:r,:Z:SlfJ.. .. · that su.cll j_)::-oz;o:rty i§}!Qt )..ib_l__j;_o __ Q;ti3.:9.!1_ig<,?t. It goes wi thou~~·say:i:_r1.3, . therefore, tJ..r,t 2.n application wider this rule seekil'.1i<:; to set asido ti, .t· . ,.,··· proclr-uw:i:tion 6:f sale in execution of a decree. on ·the IT ground 0£ mat~;:;i.:l irreguJ.a1~:i.. t:r in publishing i t 0 is CTt best misconcei voq. and. at ihc wo:rst 11 garbJ:edtt 2.s · mtbmittod y couiiso1 for the .Responde1_1t ;: · .Iu •my:_clar judgnent .,~. notwithst::md.:Ln,,- the wishes of Jfi:,:. I12ka:n:,f'G .an application m1.dcr 'Order 21, rulo 57(1) .::;2xl (2) of the C?C, )Yo. :;arty to a sui-:ty to a suit is based.on a total r:i.SRj});Olic11Sion of the lavTo '.' -Furthcrmor0, :such an appliaat_i_on not. ch.allGr/;.i.11,:; t11e e,ttachment of pro1i0:;:-ty on th0 g:r01mi th.J.t· su°'-'1. .nttac..l:J.0tl- proport3 iri not lia1:,la 'to attachht is .a total misconception .if. not. a pareo.3r of th0 ~:wcution of dccr;e· process. The same ou.gi1t to be help . ,, as incor:1y;oto:1t and struck out. In view th,:} above, I uphold, without demur 9 · the preliminary objoctioE 011 8, point of law taken- 'by -counsel fo:r the J.ospondent on tho competence o:0 t1:-.is application. This application l:Joing misconceived arld. incoIP{P.Otont ic l.10:coby struck out with costs. It is so ordered. Loli.,.rc:,.,oc:. i:1 court in the :r.:rosonce of hr, Kakan 6 'C advocate and Nr. l'Iiram1lo ::,'l<'l re:.: .. Tfaro, advocates, this 20th day of November, 2000 J1IDGE 20olla20QQ I h0:;,cb3- co:i:t:Lf;sr this to "be true copy of thG original. /hjm 1- ,t't-_ {·-\ . . •'~~ DIS11i1ICT ITOGISill~~ · /}1USEA

Discussion