Parties in disputed sale of Tigo shares lock horns

FAUSTINE KAPAMA

PARTIES in the 34,479 share sale dispute have locked horns on whether the Court of Appeal should review its decision on the matter.

While advocates for Gold en Globe International Service and Quality Group Limited asked the court to review its February 27, 2017 order on the application for revision of the High Court proceedings on the dispute, the counsel for Millicom (Tanzania) NV opposed.

The trial panel, comprising of Justices Mbarouk Mbarouk, Augustine Mwarija and Richard Mziray, promised to rule on the matter on a later date thoroughly studying the competing submissions from both parties.

The panel had in February dismissed all the grounds of objections by Globe International and Quality Group Limited against the hearing of revision proceedings opened by the court suo moto (own motion) following Millicom (Tanzania) complaint.

The two companies had alleged that revision proceedings were incompetent because Millicom (Tanzania) NV, which claims majority shareholding in MIC Tanzania Limited, Tigo, had alternative remedies, including filing a separate suit for recovery of its rights.

They had further argued that the proceedings were incompetent for non-joinder of the parties and that they were bad in law for containing incomplete records. In their ruling, the justices said the raised grounds lacked merits and ordered the hearing of the matter to proceed.

During the hearing of application for review, advocate Mpaya Kamara confronted the court’s decision, saying it had been made in apparent errors, resulting into a miscarriage of justice.

Assisted by advocates Seni Malimi and Joseph Ndazi, he submitted that the court ordered the hearing without joining other necessary parties, the Court Broker Mustafa Nyumbamkali, who had sold the shares through an auction.

He told the panel that records show the acting Chief Justice, upon receiving the complaint had directed notification of all the involved parties. “But, the parties cited in these revision proceedings are not complete and the same... this is an error,” he said.

Countering, advocates Eric Ng’maryo and Fayaz Bhojani asked the court to dismiss with costs the application for review, saying the two companies, Globe International Service and Quality Group Limited had not established any ground for the court to exercise its review powers.

Mr Ng’maryo analysed five principles to consider in determining the application for review but, which the applicants had not met. The principles, he said, indicate that the review remedy is restrictive, is the process to correct an injustice, is an exceptional process and the process on the manifest error, which is obvious.

He said that not every error can justify the review process. There have been ranges of claims regarding the transfer of Tigo shares, with Millicom (Tanzania), a limited company registered under the laws of Curacao, claiming majority shareholding in MIC Tanzania Limited, a Tanzanian registered firm.

The dispute can be traced back in 2002 when a Briton, Mr James Bell, filed a Civil Case No. 306/2002 against MIC UFA Ltd, Millicom International Cellular SA and MIC Tanzania Limited.

In the case, Millicom NV was not a party. Mr Bell secured a default judgment against MIC UFA Limited and Millicom International Cellular SA only in March 2005.

The plaintiff attempted but in vain to execute the judgment against shares in Tigo, with the then High Court Judge Laurian Kalegeya ruling on November 7, 2009 that the shares were not owned by Millicom International Cellular SA, but rather Millicom NV, a separate legal entity.