The Commercial Case Law Index is a collection of judgments from African countries on topics relating to commercial legal practice. The collection aims to provide a snapshot of commercial legal practice in a country, rather than present solely traditionally "reportable" cases. The index currently covers 400 judgments from Uganda, Tanzania, Nigeria, Ghana and South Africa.
Get started on finding judgments that are relevant to you by browsing the topic list on the left of the screen. Click the arrows next to the topic names to reveal a detailed list of sub-topics. Most judgments are accompanied by a short summary written by subject-matter expert postgraduate students from the University of Cape Town.
The case concerned a dispute about how to commence litigation on behalf of companies. The court held that whether or not failure to seek and obtain the permission of a company to institute litigation or an application is no longer the law in Tanzania. It was held that the issue of jurisdiction will allow a court to investigate factors to determine if the company gave permission to institute court proceedings. However, the party alleging that the company did not give authority must prove their case. Only when there is sufficient evidence will the court investigate the issue of jurisdiction. In this case, the applicant failed to prove his case and the application was dismissed.
In this case the applicant sought relief to set aside an ex parte order. The case illustrates the enquiry into determining who can rightly sue in the name of a corporation.
The court considered whether the High Court had made a consent order, or an ex parte order. The court held that though the order against the fifth respondent was a consent order, the order against the applicant was ex parte because the applicant was not present. The court held that the law gives the remedy to set aside an ex parte order and that it had the power under s 93 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to enlarge the time period for an application.
The court considered the issue as to who was entitled to bring an action for and on behalf of the applicant. The court held that it was the company alone that could initiate or defend proceedings and not a shareholder of the company. The court held that it appeared that there were disputes regarding the internal management of the applicant. Thus, the shareholders or counsel who had initiated the application were not authorised persons.
The application was dismissed and the rest of the arguments regarding extension of time to file the application were set aside without determination.