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.
No comments:
Post a Comment