By Staff Writer
DAR ES SALAAM – Justice Musa K. Pomo of the High Court of Tanzania, Commercial Division at Dar es Salaam, has dismissed with costs Standard Chartered Bank’s application to extend time to appeal the 26th August 2020 set-aside of its UK judgment against Independent Power Tanzania Limited (IPTL), ruling that the applicants failed to prosecute their application.
The ruling in Misc. Commercial Application No. 1361 of 2026, dated at Dar es Salaam and delivered in chamber on this 5th day of May, 2026, ends Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Limited and Standard Chartered Bank Malaysia Berhad’s attempt to revive Civil Appeal No. 386 of 2022.
Justice Pomo held that courts have not been soft with the litigants who fail to comply with court orders, including failure to file written submissions within the time frame ordered.
Hon. Pomo noted: "I have given due scrutiny the application and its supporting affidavit, the joint counter affidavit by the 1st and 2nd respondents; the 3rd respondent’s counter affidavit as well the contending submissions by the parties as filed. Despite overcoming jurisdiction and CPC applicability challenges, the Court found the Applicants failed to comply with directions on prosecution, specifically failure to file written submissions within the time frame ordered."
He found the Applicants’ conduct was similar to those of failure to appear and prosecute or defend, as the case may be. The ruling was delivered in presence of Mr. Prince Chenge, learned advocate for the Applicants also holding brief for Mr. Musa Mhagama, learned advocate for the 1st and 2nd respondents. Mr. James Burchard Rugemalira, principal officer for the 3rd respondent appeared too. Right of Appeal Fully Explained.
Reacting to the decision, Harbinder Singh Sethi, the Executive Chairman of Independent Power Tanzania Limited (IPTL), said the ruling vindicates IPTL’s long-held position that the UK judgment was obtained and pursued irregularly. “The High Court has upheld the rule of law. You cannot abuse court process, fail to follow clear directions, and expect indulgence. This decision protects Tanzanian companies from foreign judgments secured without due regard to local proceedings,” Harbinder Singh Sethi said. He added that the dismissal with costs sends a strong message that procedural compliance is not optional, even for international banks.
Harbinder Singh Sethi lauded the Court for reaffirming that parallel proceedings cannot be ignored. “Since 26th August 2020, the position has been clear: you cannot register a foreign judgment when the same subject matter is live before Tanzanian courts. Justice Pomo has closed the door on forum shopping,” he said.
IPTL welcomed the end to what the Executive Chairman called “Seven years of his Executive Chairmanship SCBHK failed to prove the purchase of Debt from Danhatra, therefore SCBHK is not a Creditor of IPTL ".
The Court overruled the Order V Rule 2 objection, holding the Civil Procedure Code is not applicable in matters pertaining application for extension of time to lodge notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal. Thus, the objection is misconceived and the Judge overruled it.
It also overruled VIP Engineering’s jurisdiction objection, finding under section 8(1) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act [Cap.141 R.E., 2023], the decision of this court sought to be appealed against is among those listed to be appealable. No law was cited to show the Court lacked jurisdiction.
Relying on Brazafric Enterprises Limited vs Kaderes Peasants Development (PLC) Civil Appeal No. 520 of 2022 TZCA 358 (15 April 2025), Justice Pomo ruled matters relating to appeals to the Court are not prescribed in the CPC and therefore, cannot be allowed under the CPC either. Consequently, The High Court (Commercial Division) Procedure Rule, 2012, GN No. 250 of 2012 as amended is inapplicable in matters pertaining to application for extension of time to lodge a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Only the Appellate Jurisdiction Act [Cap.141 R.E.2023] and Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 govern such applications. The Court found section 93 of the CPC permits further extension of time already extended, but it is inapplicable in the circumstances of this case where the extension of time sought to be enlarged was made under section 11 of the AJA, and dismissed grounds one and two.
The Applicants’ amended chamber summons was expunged because the applicants had no automatic right of amending the application without leave of the court.
The Applicants’ substantive case under Section 11(1) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act was never decided on merit due to the prosecution failure. They argued they had been diligently prosecuting Civil Appeal No. 386 of 2022, which had been properly instituted and admitted before being struck out.
Thereafter, the short period following the Court of Appeal’s ruling was reasonably spent on advising the Applicants and preparing the present application. They relied on Lyamuya Construction Co. Ltd vs Board of Registered Trustees of YWCA TZCA 4 (2011) that an applicant must account for the entire period of delay, which, they argued, has been sufficiently done in the present case.
Counsel submitted the Applicants acted with due diligence and promptness upon the striking out of the appeal and that the application was filed without undue delay, taking into account intervening non-working days, consistent with Ngao Godwin Losero vs Julius Mwarabu TZCA 302 (2016).
On the legal threshold, they submitted the Court has wide discretion under Mbogo v Shah EA 93 and should consider length of delay, the reason for the delay, whether there is an arguable appeal, and the degree of prejudice to the respondent.
They stressed the delay in question is minimal and was occasioned by necessary legal processes, including advising the Applicants and preparing the application immediately after the striking out of the appeal, thereby demonstrating diligence and absence of laxity.
The Applicants added that the existence of the earlier notice of appeal and its subsequent striking out are admitted facts. Once a fact is admitted, it requires no further proof, and therefore the absence of annexures does not prejudice the Court’s ability to determine the application. The law does not require excessive or microscopic detail such as internal legal opinions or day-by-day breakdowns, but only a satisfactory explanation showing absence of negligence.
They distinguished Cosmas Construction Co. Ltd vs Arrow Garments Ltd TLR 127 because the material date is known and undisputed, Bruno Wenceslaus Nyalifa vs Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs CAT 2017 because there was a complete failure to explain a material period of delay, which is not the case here, and The Registered Trustees of the Archdiocese of Dar es Salaam vs The Chairman Bunju Village Government because there was a complete absence of reasons in the affidavit, unlike the present case where sufficient reasons have been clearly provided.
The 1st and 2nd Respondents — Independent Power Tanzania Limited and Pan Africa Power Solutions (T) Limited, through Mr. Musa Mhagama and Mr. Benedict Magoto Mayani — argued the application was fundamentally defective both procedurally and on substance. They cited Bruno Nyalifa and Appeal No. 147 of 2006 CAT.
In the absence of reasons reflected in the affidavit, there is no material evidence upon which the Court can determine the application on merit. The 3rd Respondent, VIP Engineering and Marketing Limited, raised extraneous matters wholly unrelated to the application before the Court, including issues of shareholding, creditor status, and alleged stamp duty. Its counter-affidavit does not specifically traverse or respond to the particular averments contained in the Applicants’ affidavit, which in law amounts to an admission thereof.
The dispute stems from a foreign judgment from the High Court of Justice of England in November 2016 against IPTL. Registered ex parte on 9th February 2017, it was set aside on 26th August 2020 for parallel proceedings in Tanzanian courts concerning the same subject matter, thereby posing a risk of conflicting judicial determinations. Standard Chartered appealed via Civil Appeal No. 386 of 2022, struck out on 9th January 2026 for non-compliance with procedural requirements relating to service of the memorandum and record of appeal.
0 Comments