Twentsche Overseas Trading Co. (Tanzania) Ltd. v. East African Cycle Corp., Civ. Case 3-M-67, 14/12/67, Mustafa J.

Twentsche Overseas Trading Co. (Tanzania) Ltd. v. East African Cycle Corp., Civ. Case 3-M-67, 14/12/67, Mustafa J.

Plaintiff company obtained a civil judgment against defendant company, and filed an application for attachment under order 21 , rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. The District Registrar then purported to issue a warrant of attachment of movable property in terms of Order 21, rule 30 of the Civil Procedure Code (which, at the time, corresponded to the present rule 28). Possession was taken by the court-broker, and the Registrar purported to issue a notice to settle terms of sale under Order 21, rule 65. Subsequently the defendant filed a chamber application arguing that the attachment be raised, and the execution of the decree be declared a nullity. Defendant’s grounds were that the court did not decree the attachment or order it s execution, and that the Registrar’s warrant of attachment was therefore of no effect.

            Ruled: (1) Under Order 21, rule 15(4), when an application for attachment is submitted the court “shall …. Order execution of the decree according to the nature of the application …. “ These provisions are mandatory. (2) All proceedings after the filing of the application are therefore null an void. Attachment of goods levied raised, with costs of application charged to plaintiff