BAK
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 11, 2007
- 124,790
- 288,165
IPTL suffer legal setback in resisting winding up
By Rosina John
THE CITIZEN
A Malaysian company that owns and operates the controversial Independent Power Tanzania Limited (IPTL) has suffered a legal set back in its attempts to block the winding up of business after a suit filed by one of its shareholders was thrown out.
The High Court yesterday struck out an appeal lodged by Mechmar Corporation against a wind up suit filed by VIP Engineering and Marketing Limited.
The ruling by the district court registrar S.H Kenemelo on behalf of High Court judge Catherine Oriyo, means that VIP Engineering owned by Dar es Salaam businessman James Rugemarila can now go ahead and present its case for winding up of IPTL. The trader owns 30 per cent stake in the power generating company.
The suit by the businessman was in response to an earlier order by the London Court of International Arbitration granting permission to initiate wind up proceedings.
The court yesterday said Mechmar Corporation, the majority shareholders of IPTL, has failed to prosecute its application as ordered by the court on February 5.
Judge Oriyo said that she had ordered the parties to file their submissions in support or opposition of the defence application, but Mechmar Corporation defaulted to comply.
"The respondents (Mechmar) for reasons best known to themselves did not comply with the court order made on February 5. The logical question is what follows next? This court is enjoined to make its ruling on this so that the case can proceed. The consequence of failure to prosecute own case is dismissal," she said.
There were claims that Mechmar Corporation had not filed the submissions in support of their case because they had filed a notice of appeal and an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against dismissal of an objection over another application seeking to set aside the said award.
In her ruling, however, the judge said that the notice of appeal and the application for leave to appeal were filed after the court had made an order that written submissions be filed according to the prescribed time table after which the court would deliver its ruling on the issue involving enforcement of the arbitration award.
The judge, therefore, ordered the parties to proceed to determine another issue, in the same case involving appointment of an official receiver for IPTL and directed the VIP company to file their submissions on November 11.
Mechmar Corporation, on the other hand, would file its reply on November 21, and the VIP company would file its rejoinder, if any on November 27.
The court would deliver its ruling on the issue on December 15.
By Rosina John
THE CITIZEN
A Malaysian company that owns and operates the controversial Independent Power Tanzania Limited (IPTL) has suffered a legal set back in its attempts to block the winding up of business after a suit filed by one of its shareholders was thrown out.
The High Court yesterday struck out an appeal lodged by Mechmar Corporation against a wind up suit filed by VIP Engineering and Marketing Limited.
The ruling by the district court registrar S.H Kenemelo on behalf of High Court judge Catherine Oriyo, means that VIP Engineering owned by Dar es Salaam businessman James Rugemarila can now go ahead and present its case for winding up of IPTL. The trader owns 30 per cent stake in the power generating company.
The suit by the businessman was in response to an earlier order by the London Court of International Arbitration granting permission to initiate wind up proceedings.
The court yesterday said Mechmar Corporation, the majority shareholders of IPTL, has failed to prosecute its application as ordered by the court on February 5.
Judge Oriyo said that she had ordered the parties to file their submissions in support or opposition of the defence application, but Mechmar Corporation defaulted to comply.
"The respondents (Mechmar) for reasons best known to themselves did not comply with the court order made on February 5. The logical question is what follows next? This court is enjoined to make its ruling on this so that the case can proceed. The consequence of failure to prosecute own case is dismissal," she said.
There were claims that Mechmar Corporation had not filed the submissions in support of their case because they had filed a notice of appeal and an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against dismissal of an objection over another application seeking to set aside the said award.
In her ruling, however, the judge said that the notice of appeal and the application for leave to appeal were filed after the court had made an order that written submissions be filed according to the prescribed time table after which the court would deliver its ruling on the issue involving enforcement of the arbitration award.
The judge, therefore, ordered the parties to proceed to determine another issue, in the same case involving appointment of an official receiver for IPTL and directed the VIP company to file their submissions on November 11.
Mechmar Corporation, on the other hand, would file its reply on November 21, and the VIP company would file its rejoinder, if any on November 27.
The court would deliver its ruling on the issue on December 15.