Civil Reference No. 7 of 2004
This matter arose from an intended appeal to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania. The applicants, the Commissioner General and another, sought a stay of execution of a ruling delivered by the High Court of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam (Mapigano, J.) dated 22nd April 1999 in Civil Application No. 16 of 1996, in proceedings involving the respondent, MAC Arthur & Baker International (Inc.). The judgment record does not disclose the underlying facts of the original dispute or the substance of the High Court ruling sought to be stayed.
The key issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the application for stay of execution of the High Court's ruling of 22nd April 1999 should be granted pending the determination of the intended appeal.
The judgment record does not set out detailed arguments advanced by either party. The order indicates that the application was resolved by consent of the parties, meaning both the applicants (the Commissioner General and another) and the respondent (MAC Arthur & Baker International) agreed to the grant of the stay of execution, obviating the need for the Court to adjudicate on contested submissions regarding the merits of the stay application.
Ramadhani, J.A., sitting as a single Justice of Appeal, ordered that by consent of the parties, the application for stay of execution be granted, with costs to follow the event. The Court did not provide substantive reasoning beyond noting that the order was made by consent, indicating that both parties agreed on the outcome without the need for adversarial determination of the application's merits.
This ruling is a short procedural order reflecting the Court of Appeal's practice of giving effect to consent orders in applications for stay of execution pending appeal. It illustrates that where parties reach agreement on interlocutory relief such as a stay of execution, the Court will readily record and enforce that consent, including as to costs following the event, without engaging in a substantive analysis of the grounds for stay. As a consent order, its precedential value is limited, but it demonstrates the Court's approach to expediting procedural applications where parties are in agreement, thereby conserving judicial resources for contested matters.
Speak directly with our advocates. We turn precedent into actionable advice for your matter.