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[1998] TZHC 2008Tanzania

Afra Masudi vs Kwacha Transport Company & 5 Others (Misc. Civil Cause 64 of 1996) [1998] TZHC 2008 (24 August 1998)

High Court of Tanzania

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (DAE ES SALAAM DISTRICT REGISTRY) A T PAR ES S A LAAM MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL CAPSB NO.64/1996 AFRA MASUDI ...... . ....... . .............. . . ... APPLICANT Versus KWACHA TRANSPORT COMPANY AND ) .......... ..... RESPONDENTS 5 OTHERS ) R U L I N G CHIPETA. J . : r In this matter, the petitioner, Afra Masudi, has petitioned this Court for, inter ali a .an order that the respondents, ■ M/S Kwacha Transport Co. and five others, do furnish audited accounts of the first respondent for the last 10 years. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed an application for an order that this Couril should appoint a fit and proper person other than i the respondents as collector and caretaker of the first respondennt*s debts. The application cited section 95 of the Civil as the enabling provisions of the law. house rent and Procedure Code Mr, Kilindu, learned counsel, for the respondents, raised a preliminary objection to the application to the effect that the application is bad in law in that section 95 of the Civil Procedure Code does not, on its own, confer any powers on anyone to do or not to do certain things. With the consent of the Court, the learned advocates of the parties filed written submissions# I have carefully considered those, submissions and the authorities cited. In my view, there is ample authority for the provisions of s|ection 95 of the Civil Procedure Code cannot fee

2 invoked, on their own, where there is an express provision of law by. which the remedy sought may be granted. (See Mul.ji v. Jadavji, (1963) S.A. 217). ; For these reasons, whatever may be the substance of the , .sialication, I am constrained to reject this application for being j4%pt properly before the court. This application is accordingly '‘ sfcsuck out with costs. B. D. CHIP3TA JUDGE Ruling delivered in Chambers this 2^th day of September, 1998. B. D„ CHIPSTA JUDGE ' Mr* Maftah for applicant Mr. Kilindu for Respondents.

Discussion