Jaji Mkuu na Jaji Kiongozi tunaomba muingilie hili kwa mustakabali wa haki. Jaji Salma Maghimbi ni mzigo kwa Mahakama
Jaji Mkuu na Jaji Kiongozi tunaomba muingilie hili kwa mustakabali wa haki. Jaji Salma Maghimbi ni mzigo kwa Mahakama
badison
JF-Expert Member
- May 29, 2015
- 1,450
- 2,761
Usipende kumtuhumu mtu bila kuweka taarifa kamili ya Kero yako juu ya mahakama na siyo kero juu ya Jaji kama una kero ihusishe mahakama siyo kumlenga mtu mmoja tuu Jaji Wakati kuna watumishi wengine, mahakama ni taasisi kubwa utajikita unataka kumharibia mtu heshima yake kwa mambo kama haya ambayo hayaeleweki au yakutunga. Eleza nyaraka gani nk
dudus
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 28, 2011
- 23,782
- 54,213
... yeye ni mtoa tip; wahusika wafuatilie. Usitake ajiweke kwenye mazingira hatarishi kwa kutoa details zake humu.
Masokotz
JF-Expert Member
- Nov 26, 2018
- 3,713
- 6,121
Mkuu,Tuspojifunza kulipuka tunapopata Moto tutachingwa kimya kimya,mmoja mmoja.Hukumu ni haki yake,Jaji anao wajibu wa kisheria wa kumpatia nakala ya hukumu ili kama anahitaji kukata rufaa etc aendelee.Aweke kesi no hapa,ni ya lini.The huyo Magimbi akiiona awahi ofisi akaitoe ama la yule mkuu wa utumishi wa mahakama amle kichwa.Sioni shida mana hapa hatafuti huruma.
Yeye sio whistle blower.Whistle Blower anaweza andika hivi ila yeye ni victim Victim anapaswa kuweka taarifa kamili maana majaji nao huwa wanapita humu.OVA
Pole sana, hawa wanalindana, sidhani kama atakusaidia kupitia JF. Tafuta mwanasheria amuandikie barua kuhusu ucheleweshaji huo.
Masokotz
JF-Expert Member
- Nov 26, 2018
- 3,713
- 6,121
Mkuu,ni vyema akiandika barua ila pia ni vyema akaweka full details za kesi hapa maaana tayari hukumu imetolewa which means ni suala la kutoa nakala ya hukumu na jaji analala nayo.Kama wao wanalindana basi sisi tuwalipue tu ili kama kulindana walindane vizuri
Benjamini Netanyahu
JF-Expert Member
- Aug 7, 2014
- 95,871
- 116,627
Sure
Nilikuwa mleta maombi kwenye shauri misc civil cause no 334/2021 dhidi ya Godbless Lema na mkewe, ambapo tar 21/06/2023 ulitoa uamuzi. Tar 22/06/2023 niliandika barua kuomba kupatiwa nakala ya hukumu, drawn order na proceedings. Baada ya kuja sana ofisini kwako, wiki jana nilipatiwa nakala ya uamuzi. Bado drawn order na proceedings. Sasa ni miezi 4 nafuatilia nyaraka hizi bila mafanikio. Mh Jaji mimi kwa sasa nakaaa moshi, ninaumia sana kuja dar kufuatilia nyaraka husika na kutumia muda mwingi hivi. Kule kwetu moshi huwa tunaamini JUSTICE DELAYED IS THE JUSTICE DENIED. Naomba unipatie nyaraka hizo niendelee na michakato mingine.
johnthebaptist
JF-Expert Member
- May 27, 2014
- 97,869
- 171,716
Nabii Lema
voicer
JF-Expert Member
- Jul 13, 2020
- 5,545
- 11,935
Sasa huku JF imeletwa ya nini?
Kitu hakieleweki kichwa wala miguu!
Benjamini Netanyahu
JF-Expert Member
- Aug 7, 2014
- 95,871
- 116,627
Hawa ni chawa wa CCM
Kipi hujaelewa? Amekuwa addressed jaji maghimbi wewe unataka uelewe ili iweje?
CCM imeingiaje hapa?
Duuh! tumefikia pabaya, nyaraka za mahakamani zinaombwa JF?
Ndiyo kwa kuwa njia zote za kawaida imeshindikana. Wasajili nao wanaogopa kumshinikiza jaji. Dawa ni kuja public
Stress zinahusikaje hapo?
pilipili kichaa
JF-Expert Member
- Sep 3, 2013
- 18,406
- 14,643
Now days majaji wa Tz wamepoteza ile credibility iliyokuwepo zamani.
Majaji wa siku hizi wamekuwa watu wa rushwa kama walivyo mahakimu wa mahakama za chini!
Majaji wa siku hizi wamekuwa watu wa rushwa kama walivyo mahakimu wa mahakama za chini!
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA
(DAR-ES-SALAAM SUB-REGISTRY)
AT DAR-ES-SALAAM
MISC. CIVIL. CAUSE NO. 334 OF 2021 IN THE MATTER OF COMPANIES ACT (ACT NO. 212 OF 2019)AND
IN THE MATTER OF SENKONDO'S EXPORT AND IMPORT COMPANY
LIMITED AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY;
DANNY G. KWAYU........... PETITIONER
VERSUS
ROSELYNE GODWIN TARIMO .................... 1st RESPONDENT
NEEMA GODBLESS LEMA ........................................ 2nd RESPONDENT
GODBLESS JONATHAN LEMA ........................ 3rd RESPONDENT
NELSON LIELIBARIKI LEMA ..................................4th RESPONDENT
SENKONDO'S EXPORT AND IMPORT CO.LTD................5th RESPONDENT
RULING
S.M. MAGHIMBI J:
This ruling is on preliminary objections raised by the 1st, 4th and 5th respondent while filing their joint reply to the petition, challenging the competency of this petition on two grounds that:
1. The petition is hopelessly time barred.
2. That the petition is incurably defective for citing a non-existing law namely The Company Act (Cap 212 R.E 2019)
Hearing was by way of written submissions. At the hearing of the objection, the 1st, 4th, and 5th Respondents enjoyed the service of Mr.Saraja Mangula learned counsel, while the Applicant was represented by Ms. Catherine Charles.
In support of their objection, Mr. Mangula submitted that the
petition is time barred because the cause of action arose on 15th September 2014. He argued that counting from the date the course of action arose to the 12th of July, 2021 when this petition was filed is 6 years, ten months and 3 days since the dispute arose. That there is no dispute that the Applicant filed this petition under Section 233(1) of the Companies Act, Cap 212 R.E 2002, (Cap. 212) whereby the same is silent on the issue of time limitation to file the petition of this nature. He then argued that every cause of action should have a time limit. That since no time limit has been provided, then the relevant provisions are the
provisions of Part III Item 21 of the Law of Limitation Act, Cap 89 R.E
2019 which provides that an application under the Civil Procedure Code, the Magistrates' Courts Act, or other written law for which no period of limitation is provided in this Act or any other written law is -sixty days.
In reply, Ms. Charles for the petitioner submitted that the
preliminary objection raised by the Respondents is a mixture of matter of law and facts which must be ascertained by proof. Her argument was that
a preliminary objection should only be raised on a pure question of law, supporting her argument by citing the case of Ms. Safia Ahmed Okash
(As administratrix of the Estate of the late Ahmed Okash vs Ms.
Sikudhani Amheiri & 82 others, Civil. Appeal No. 138 of 2016,
CAT, (Unreported), whereby on page 24-25, the Court stated that:
"...its facts on the point of preliminary objection were
subject to a contest, and so the High Court could not
determine the point at the preliminary stage, l/l/e are thus,
minded to find the allegations containedinparagraphs 88 and
89 as facts calling forproofatthe trial" She then alleged that the previous application was filed on 29th June 2020 which was within the prescribed time of 6 years since the claims of cause of action by Respondents started to accrue. That the application
was struck out on 29th March 2021. She further contended that the cause of action arose from 15th December 2015 and not 15th September 2014 as claimed by the counsel for the Respondents. That the point on which the cause of action started, to the date of filing the petition which was 12th July 2021 is 5 years and 7 months hence the petition is filed within the prescribed time of 6 years.
In his brief rejoinder, Mr. Mangula reiterated to his submission in
chief that the petition is hopelessly time-barred, citing Section 5 of the Law of Limitation Act, in which the provision is coached with the word "shall" meaning mandatory compliance.
On my part, I have perused the affidavit and the submissions of
parties as well as the companies' board resolution which was marked as ........
READ MORE :
Source : Danny G. Kwayu vs Roselyne Godwin Tarimo & 4 Others (Misc. Civil Cause No. 334 of 2021) [2023] TZHC 21565 (21 June 2023)
(DAR-ES-SALAAM SUB-REGISTRY)
AT DAR-ES-SALAAM
MISC. CIVIL. CAUSE NO. 334 OF 2021 IN THE MATTER OF COMPANIES ACT (ACT NO. 212 OF 2019)AND
IN THE MATTER OF SENKONDO'S EXPORT AND IMPORT COMPANY
LIMITED AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY;
DANNY G. KWAYU........... PETITIONER
VERSUS
ROSELYNE GODWIN TARIMO .................... 1st RESPONDENT
NEEMA GODBLESS LEMA ........................................ 2nd RESPONDENT
GODBLESS JONATHAN LEMA ........................ 3rd RESPONDENT
NELSON LIELIBARIKI LEMA ..................................4th RESPONDENT
SENKONDO'S EXPORT AND IMPORT CO.LTD................5th RESPONDENT
RULING
S.M. MAGHIMBI J:
This ruling is on preliminary objections raised by the 1st, 4th and 5th respondent while filing their joint reply to the petition, challenging the competency of this petition on two grounds that:
1. The petition is hopelessly time barred.
2. That the petition is incurably defective for citing a non-existing law namely The Company Act (Cap 212 R.E 2019)
Hearing was by way of written submissions. At the hearing of the objection, the 1st, 4th, and 5th Respondents enjoyed the service of Mr.Saraja Mangula learned counsel, while the Applicant was represented by Ms. Catherine Charles.
In support of their objection, Mr. Mangula submitted that the
petition is time barred because the cause of action arose on 15th September 2014. He argued that counting from the date the course of action arose to the 12th of July, 2021 when this petition was filed is 6 years, ten months and 3 days since the dispute arose. That there is no dispute that the Applicant filed this petition under Section 233(1) of the Companies Act, Cap 212 R.E 2002, (Cap. 212) whereby the same is silent on the issue of time limitation to file the petition of this nature. He then argued that every cause of action should have a time limit. That since no time limit has been provided, then the relevant provisions are the
provisions of Part III Item 21 of the Law of Limitation Act, Cap 89 R.E
2019 which provides that an application under the Civil Procedure Code, the Magistrates' Courts Act, or other written law for which no period of limitation is provided in this Act or any other written law is -sixty days.
In reply, Ms. Charles for the petitioner submitted that the
preliminary objection raised by the Respondents is a mixture of matter of law and facts which must be ascertained by proof. Her argument was that
a preliminary objection should only be raised on a pure question of law, supporting her argument by citing the case of Ms. Safia Ahmed Okash
(As administratrix of the Estate of the late Ahmed Okash vs Ms.
Sikudhani Amheiri & 82 others, Civil. Appeal No. 138 of 2016,
CAT, (Unreported), whereby on page 24-25, the Court stated that:
"...its facts on the point of preliminary objection were
subject to a contest, and so the High Court could not
determine the point at the preliminary stage, l/l/e are thus,
minded to find the allegations containedinparagraphs 88 and
89 as facts calling forproofatthe trial" She then alleged that the previous application was filed on 29th June 2020 which was within the prescribed time of 6 years since the claims of cause of action by Respondents started to accrue. That the application
was struck out on 29th March 2021. She further contended that the cause of action arose from 15th December 2015 and not 15th September 2014 as claimed by the counsel for the Respondents. That the point on which the cause of action started, to the date of filing the petition which was 12th July 2021 is 5 years and 7 months hence the petition is filed within the prescribed time of 6 years.
In his brief rejoinder, Mr. Mangula reiterated to his submission in
chief that the petition is hopelessly time-barred, citing Section 5 of the Law of Limitation Act, in which the provision is coached with the word "shall" meaning mandatory compliance.
On my part, I have perused the affidavit and the submissions of
parties as well as the companies' board resolution which was marked as ........
READ MORE :
Source : Danny G. Kwayu vs Roselyne Godwin Tarimo & 4 Others (Misc. Civil Cause No. 334 of 2021) [2023] TZHC 21565 (21 June 2023)