Mohsin Mohamed Taki Abdallah vs Tariq Mirza & Others (Civil Application 53 of 1998) [1998] TZHC 2030 (2 November 1998)

IN THF. HIGH COURT OF TAN7.ANTA AT PAR F . S RAT.A AM CIVTL APPLICATION NO. 53 OF 1 998 MOHSIN MOHAMFD TAKT ABDALLAH ............. PETITIONER VERSUS TARTO MTRZA ) DEUSDEDIT KTSTSTWF, ) ppcpnNDFNT*; MOHAMED DAMJT ) .................RESPONDENT., TTT.E AND TUB LTD ) REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES ) R U I . T N G K A L R G E Y A . J D i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h the r u l i n g of this c o m 1 (Nsekela, J ) . . w h i c h d i s m i s s e d their p r e l i m i n a r y o b j e c t i o n s , the 1st and 4th R e s p o n d e n t s filed a n o t i c e of Appeal to the C o u r t of Appeal and p r o c e e d e d to a p p l y for c o p i e s of p r o c e e d i n g s , r u l i n g and order, w h i c h u p to the time of this r u l i n g (as per r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s m a d e by p a r t i e s d u r i n g the h e a r i n g of the m a t t e r leading to Ibis r u l i n g ) t h e ' s a m e have not been supplied. M a t t e r s b e i n g as they are the P e t i t i o n e r a p p l i e d to the c ourt to h a v e his a p p l i c a t i o n for t e m p o r a r y i n j u n c t i o n heard, w h i c h p r a y e r a t t r a c t e d a stiff obiect.ion from R e s p o n d e n t s w h o c o u n t e r e d that, as t.hei e is a n o t i c e of A p p e a l to the C o u r t of Appeal this courts' b a n d s are tied and cannot p r o c e e d w i t h such appli c a t i o n . Tins ruling is in r e s p e c t of that, contr o v e r s y . For c l a r i t y some b a c k g r o u n d to the w h o l e issue is necessary. A c c o r d i n g to the r e c o r d s at hand, the P e t i t i o n e r \ A p p 1 icant , M o h s i n M o h a m e d Taki A b d a l l a h and the 1st - 3rd R e s p o n d e n t s (Tariq M i zra, Deusded.it K i k i s i w e , M o h a m e d D a m j i ) f ormed a c o m p a n y in the n a m e of the 4th R e s p o n d e n t (Tile and Tub Ltd) in 1992. T h e i r b u s i n e s s w e n t on u n d i s t u r b e d i m t i 1 1997 w h e n t h e y fell apart. 1

Joint, d e l i b e r a t i o n s settled on an u n d e r s t a n d i n g , among others., that the 1st. and 2nd R e s p o n d e n t s buy out the P e t i t i o n e r from the 4th R espondent. The terms., as well as w h e t h e r those terms w e r e f u l f i l l e d are c o n t e s t e d b e t w e e n them. The P e t i t i o n e r a l l e g e s that not. o n l y were the terms riot complied with but also the R e s p o n d e n t s went, further to f raudulently m a n u f a c t u r e a document w h i c h p u r p o r t s to show that he had a l r e a d y t ransfered his shares. The P e t i t i o n e r ther e f o r e urged this court for judgement and d e c r e e against. R e s p o n d e n t s for,, among other s . . "(a) A d e c l a r a t o r y order that the p u r p o r t e d transfer of the Petit i o n e r 's share to the 2nd and 3rd R e s p o n d e n t s is null and void. (b) That t h i s ......... court be p l e ased to order the w i n d i n g - u p of the 4th Respo n d e n t C o m p a n y " . The P e t i t i o n e r did not end there for he filed a chamber- summons s u p p o r t e d by a f f i d a v i t p r a y i n g for "(a) Rxpartfl (This was heard and d ism issed with d i m - m ' I ion:; that the a p p l i c a t i o n should be heard 1Tnt e» ua r t 1 ) (b ) T N T K R P A R T K S

1. That, this H o n o u r a b l e court be p l e ased to issue a t e m p o r a r y i njunction r e s t r a i n i n g the 1st. 2nd and 3rd R e s p o n d e n t s from movi n g or t r a n s f e r r i n g in any w a y the stock of the 4th R e s p o n d e n t C o m p a n y by locking up the s h o w r o o m and w a r e h o u s e of the a f o r e m e n t i o n e d C o m p a n y si t u a t e d on Plot N o . 4 N y e r e r e Road p e n d i n g the h e a r i n g and d e t e r m i n a t i o n of the Petition.
2. That this H o n o u r a b l e Court be p l e a s e d to issue a t e m p o r a r y injuct.ion r e s t r a i n i n g the 1st... 2nd and 3rd R e s p o n d e n t s from c o n d u c t i n g and\or m a n a g i n g the a f f a i r s of the 4th Respondent C o m p a n y p e n d i n g the h e a r i n g and d e t e r m i n a t i o n of the Petition". Tn r e s p o n s e to the w h o l e issue and when the a p p l i c a t i o n for t e m p o r a r y i n j u n c t i o n was about to be heard the 1st and 4th 2

R e s p o n d e n t s rai s e d p r e l i m i n a r y o b j e c t i o n s that-, "(a) That this H o n o u r a b l e Court has no j u r i s d i c t i o n to e n t e r t a i n bo t h the a p p l i c a t i o n for tempo r a r y i n j u c t i o n and the Petition. (b) That the A p p l i c a n t A P e t i t i o n e r has no locus standi (c) That the P e t i t i o n e r has no cause of action against the R e s p o n d e n t s " . The court t a c k l e d the o b j e c t i o n s first whi c h wer e d i s m i s s e d and thi s was f o l l o w e d by the lodging of the Not i c e of Appeal as a l r e a d y r e f e r r e d to. The P e t i t i o n e r insists that let the appeal aaainst. the rilling proc e e d but that, the a p p l i c a t i o n for t e m p o r a r y i n j u c t i o n sho u l d m e a n w h i l e be heard and decided,, which is b e i n g v i g o r o u s l y c o n t e s t e d by the Respondents. The o n l y issue in this m a t t e r is w h e t h e r in the c i r c u m s t a n c e s this court, can n o w proc e e d to hear and d e t e r m i n e the a p p l i c a t i o n for t e m p o r a r y injuction. H a v i n g c a r e f u l l y c o n s i d e r e d the same I have arri v e d at the o p i n i o n that it can't. I p u r p o s e l y q u o t e d above the p r a y e r s c o n t a i n e d in the petition; the p r e l i m i n a r y o b j e c t i o n s and the p r a y e r s that are to be c o n s i d e r e d in the a p p l i c a t i o n for t e m p o r a r y injunction - just for clarity, by p u t t i n g t o g e t h e r the gist of the w h o l e controversy. The R e s p o n d e n t s are c o n t e s t i n g amo n g others., the j u r i s d i c t i o n of this court, and the e x i s t e n c e of a cause of action. In the c i r c u m s t a n c e s , w o u l d it be p r o p e r to p r o c e e d with the h e a r i n g of the a p p l i c a t i o n for t e m p o r a r y injuction when the m a i n b o d y on w h i c h that a p p l i c a t i o n is hin g e d is being c h a l l e n g e d in the C o u r t of A p p e a l ? M y sim p l e answer is no. The m a t t e r for w h i c h the t e m p o r a r y i n j u n c t i o n is be i n g applied for is no longer w i t h i n the p o w e r s of this court but that, of the Cou r t of Appeal bv v i r t u e of the Noti c e of App e a l a l r e a d y filed. On this T am t r e a d i n g on the g u i d a n c e of the Court of Appeal of T a n z a n i a in C I V I L R E F E R E N C E NO. 25 OF 1997, In the M a t t e r of an Intended 3

Ap p e a l b e t w e e n THE N A T IONAL INSURANCE C O R P O R A T I O N (Applicant) and K W E Y A M B A H Q U A K E R (Respondent), Dsm Registry, unreported. In the a b o v e c i t e d case, following a dismissal of his two a p p l i c a t i o n s - an ap p l i c a t i o n to set asi de an expart.e judgement, and stay of execution, the applicant filed two applications, namely, an a p p l i c a t i o n for e x t ension of time to present a fresh a p p l i c a t i o n to set aside the expart.e judgement and afresh a p p l i c a t i o n for stay of execution. A week later the applicant e m p l o y e d anot h e r tactic, for, he lodged a not ice of Appeal against, the expart.e judgement. Again, shortly thereafter, the a p p l i c a n t ' s Coun s e l approached the High Court wit h a c e r t i f i c a t e of u r g e n c y u r g i n g for e arly "hearing of the two applications, adding that he was w i t h d r a w i n g the appeal. Pefore the Court of Appeal, the argument, among others was whet h e r the High Court could p r o c e e d w i t h the h e a r i n g of the two appl i c a t i o n s w hile the n o t i c e of Appeal subsisted. The Court: of Appeal after holding that the no t i c e could not be removed by the High Court also d e c i d e d that once there is such notice the matter is removed from the High Court unto the Court of Appeal. The Court held, "There are therefore two issues for c o n s i d e r a t i o n and d e t e r m i n a t i o n , that is, whet h e r a notice of Appeal remo v e s a case from the High Court to the Court of App e a l and .................beginning with the first issue, we have no hestat.ion ans w e r i n g it in the positive, and for these reasons. First of all, as p o i n t e d out by the Learned single judge, a notice of appeal, is as per Form D, instituted 'Tn the Court of Appeal of T a n z a n i a 1, and this in our view, means that the notice is a d dressed to the Court, of Appeal W e are s a tisfied ha v i n g regard to these factors, and agree w i t h Kisanga, J.A, that a notice of Appeal has the effect of remov i n g a case to the Court, of Appeal". In that case, the Counsel for the applicant also argued that n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g the lodging of a notice of appeal the High may 4

st.ilJ deal w i t h the m a t t e r and cited the q u e s t i o n of g r a n t i n g leave or d e c i d i n g on the e x i s t e n c e or o t h e r w i s e of a p o i n t of law. The Court, of Appeal respo n d e d as under. ..... The p r o v i s i o n is m e r e l y proce d u r a l and its p r i m a r y p u r p o s e is to p r o v i d e that, a n o t i c e of appeal c a n be l o d g e d b e f o r e leave to appeal or a c e r t i f i c a t e on a p o i n t of law is obtained: of . H o t e l S c h w e i t z e r v 3 L g _ . y . B r . Cunningharo A Another , (1955 ) 2.2 EACA 2.52 . 2 5 A . The rule takes into a c c o u n t the fact that, it invol v e s a pr o c e s s , w h i c h i n v a r i a b l y spills into w e e k s and m o n t h s to o b t a i n leave to appeal or to o b t a i n a c e r t i f i c a t e on a p o i n t of law, w h e r e a s a n o t i c e of apnea] has to be l odged w i t h i n f o u r t e e n days of the d e c i s i o n a a a i n s t w h i c h it is d e s i r e d to appeal. T h e r u l e d o e s n ot Bttrport_ to bring back__for_ .thei attent ion of the Hi ah C o u r t a m a t t e r a l r e a d y b e f o r e . the Court of A n n e a l " femohasis mine). ... In the c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h e r e f o r e , the R e s p o n d e n t s arcniinent is sound. T h e y are s a y i n g that there should be no case a a a inst them in this court. T h i s court, d e c i d e d that the case is prooer 1 y filed b e f o r e it. T h e R e s p o n d e n t s are c h a l l e n g i n g this b e f o r e the Court of Appeal. T h e y are c h a l l e n g i n g the w h o l e d e c i s i o n hence e v e r y t h i n g has b e e n r e m o v e d u n t o the Court of Appeal. What then can be said to h a v e r e m a i n e d w i t h this court on w h i c h the a p p l i c a t i o n as the one at. hand can be b a sed? T see nothina. For the c l e a r r e a s o n s d i s c u s s e d a b o v e the a p p l i c a t i o n by the P e t i t i o n e r that the a p p l i c a t i o n for t e m p o r a r y i n j u n c t i o n s h ould be h e a r d by this court is dismissed. ( T,. R . Ka 1e g e y a ) JUDGE D e l i v e r e d in the p r e s e n c e of Mr. Msemwa, Miss S h e i k h and Maaafu. A T D A R ES S A L A A M 2ND N O V E M B R R , 1998 (F.. R . Ka 1egeya ) JIJDGR