Mzozo wa Barick v. ACACIA na kitu kiitwacho "Legal personality"

[SubiriJibu]

Inawezekana kweli lakini bado kuna makandokando kibao, tuliingia mkataba na Barrick lakini mlipa kodi anayejulikana TRA ni Acacia na aliyesajiliwa soko la hisa ni Acacia. Mkuu inahitaji uchambauzi makini wa wasomi wetu watusaidie kututoa kwenye hili giza binafsi napongeza juhudi za Mh Rais hata kama tusipopata kitu tumeionesha dunia kuwa tunaweza kuunguruma kama nchi.

Wanasheria mnaosoma uzi huu naomba msaidie ili tuelewe jambo hili. Wote tumesikia lugha nyingi lakini walau kuna maneno mawili yanatamkwa kwenye mgogoro huu nayo ni BARICK na ACACIA.

Kama umezoea kusoma thread fupifupi basi ni bira kabisa usisome uzi huu kwa sababu jambo lenyewe si rahisi kama wengi wanavyoepnda iwe kulingana na mkondo wa kisiasa wanaoutaka.

Imeshaelezwa mara kadhaa kwamba BARICK ndiyo wenye hisa 63.9 ndani ya ACACIA kule kwao na hivyo wanahisa wengine wanamiliki asilimia 36.1. Hii maana yake ni kwamba BARICK na ACACIA ni kampuni mbili tofauti. Walahu hadi hapa wengi wanaelewa.

Sasa kama ni kampuni mbili tofauti, hata kama wanategemeana kivyao, utofauti uko palepale, hauondoi kwamba hizi ni kampuni mbili tofauti hata kama zote zingekuwa pale London bado zingejisajili kwa utofauti.

Unapoufungua kampuni katika nchi yoyote lazim huko ujisajili. Kujisajili kunakufanya uwe na haki za kibinadamu ziitwazo "legal personality", yaani uingie mikataba, ushitakike, ushitaki.

Hivyo, kama kampuni haijajisali hapo nchini Tanzania, maana yake kwamba haitambuliki, mikataba yake ni fake, haishitakiki na haiwezi kukushitaki. Kwa kifupi ni kampuni hewa. Nadhani hapo hata kama hukuwa unajua utajua.

Taabu inakuja kwamba ni sheria ipi inatambua kampuni. Kama ni madaktari ingawa si kampuni nadhani wizara ya afya ina jinsi ya kuwatambua madktari wanaokuja nchini. Kama ni ma-injinia kuna Engineers Registration Board (ERB) ili ufanye kazi za uinjinia au engineering consultant hapo nchini.

Kama ni wakili huwezi kuna namna ya kujisajili ili ufanye kazi mahakama za hapo nchini, kama sikosei kuna advocate act. Kama ni benko nadhani unajisajili BoT.

Narudia, ukishajisajili unapata ile "legal personality" yaani unashitakika, unashitaki unaingia mikataba ikiwemo ya kuajiri wafanyakazi.

Tuje sasa kwenye sakata hili la BARICK na ACACIA. Je, zilistahili kusajili wapi?

Kwa sababu zote ni kampuni ungedhani zote zingesajiliwa kwa mujibu wa sheria ya makampuni yaani The Companies Act, (Cap 212, R.E. 2002). Lakini ni wazi kwamba moja (BARICK) imesajiliwa BRELA kwa mujibu wa The Companies Act, (Cap 212, R.E. 2002). na nyingine (ACACIA) imesajiliwa kwenye soko la hisa, kama sijakosea kwa mujibu wa sheria za soko la hisa, ambayo mimi kw aujinga wangu ninaijua moja tu, Capital Markets and Securities Act, Chapter 79 R.E. 2002 na mnaoelewa zaid mtaongezea.


Nimeleta thread nikiwa nina hisia hizo nikijua kwamba jambo hili linahitaji uelewa na humu wamo wenye uelewa na inawezekana siko sahihi.

Lakini ninaona kwamba ni kwa jinsi hiyo tu ambapo unaweza kuiona ACACIA ni kampuni halali na ndiyo maana inaonekana hata TRA.

Kama ni hivyo, basi ni kwa namna hiyo basi ACACIA inatakiwa kuonekana kwamba ni kampuni halali kama kuna moja ya sheria inayoitambua, yaani sheria zinazohusiana na soko la hisa kama moja niliyoitaja yaani Capital Markets and Securities Act, Chapter 79 R.E. 2002 .

Kw alugha ya kisheria, kama kusajiliwa pale DSE kunatosha kuifanya ACACIA ionekane ndiyo biashara yake, yaani hisa tu, basi lilikuwa ni kosa la ufundi kueleza uma kwamba ACACIA haionekani BRELA kwa mujibu wa The Companies Act, (Cap 212, R.E. 2002). wakati waliosema hivyo hawakutueleza mahitaji ya sheria za hisa ikiwemo Capital Markets and Securities Act, Chapter 79 R.E. 2002.

Matokeo yake sasa hivi Waziri ametoka kushughulika na BARICK kwa siku zaidi ya 80, tukadhani tumemaliza lakini hapohapo ACACIA ni kama ametuweka kisaikolojia kwamba tusishangae ukizok mgogor mpya yaani ngoma bado ni mbichi.

Huwezi kumaliza mgogoro kwa njia ya makubaliano yanayosaniwa mbele ya Rais, halafu kampuni inasema bado ni "subject to approval" yaani kumbe kuna kipande cha kampuni kinasema hayo mliyosainiana huko Dar hawayatambui hadi watakapokaa na kuona kama yanafaa au la na yasipofaa wanajua hatua watakazochukua.

Narudia, nimeanzisha tread kwa minajiri ya kutaka kujua yaani curiosiry tena hasa baada ya msimamo mpya wa ACACIA baada ya mazungumzo.

Mnaoelewa tiririkeni.

 

[nyabhingi]

A subsidiary is a company that is wholly owned or majority controlled by another company, the "parent." Companies form or purchase subsidiaries for various reasons, including expanding business operations and spreading the risk of liability by engaging in new lines of business.

Separate Entities
Both the parent and subsidiary are separate entities and independent of one another. In some cases, the parent is the sole shareholder of the subsidiary, while in others the parent owns more than 50 percent of the voting stock. In either scenario, the parent, like any shareholder, elects the board of directors which, in turn, selects the subsidiary's management team.

Management
The parent corporation organizes the subsidiary's management structure and company bylaws, setting forth rules related to corporate governance. The level of control the parent exerts over the subsidiary determines how independent both companies are when viewed by outsiders. If the parent commingles funds with the subsidiary, shares insurance contracts and employee benefit plans, markets both companies as a single entity, files consolidated income tax returns or acts as a creditor to the subsidiary, both companies will be viewed as a single entity. Such activities may cause liability issues for the parent, and a stakeholder (creditor or other party affected by the companies' business activities) can sue the parent for using the subsidiary to advance its own interests.

Liabilities
Parent companies -- the shareholders -- are not traditionally held liable for the debts or actions of their subsidiaries. However, under common law, a court may "pierce the corporate veil" of the parent if it finds an appearance of impropriety through questionable share transfers or other fraudulent means of avoiding the subsidiary's liabilities. Courts might also subordinate the parent's debts to outside creditors if the parent has engaged in unfair conduct, such as influencing new creditors to extend credit to the subsidiary while knowing the subsidiary's poor financial condition.

Independence
Although the parent/subsidiary relationship exists through ownership, it is imperative that both entities implement protective measures to prevent stakeholders from treating the entities as one company. The parent can ensure its subsidiary operates independently by delegating more control to the subsidiary's management team, reporting financials separately, and allowing the subsidiary to hire employees and conduct its business operations as an independent entity. By selecting a strong management team, the parent can ensure the subsidiary operates a successful business without exerting control over its day-to-day activities.

 

[kobokocastory]

Personally bado naamini kuna kosa la kiufundi limefanyika mahala kwa upande wetu Tanzania na hatuna budi kurudi back to the drawing board ili turekebishe.

To some extent na hatua nzuri serikali imejaribu kuchukua manaake walau siku za usoni tunaweza sema tulidhubutu. Tatizo ni pale ambapo tumechukua hatua za udhubutu huku tukiwa na mihemuko ya juu sana kiasi kwamba tumetoka kwenye reli pasipo kushtuka.

Kutenda kosa sio kosa bali kurudia kosa. Hata baba wa taifa aliwahi kukiri kufanya makosa.

 

[kamleez gerald]

Kwa uelewa wangu Wa sheria za makampuni..kwa swala hili la madini..mmiliki Wa kampuni wa usoni ni ACACIA..lakini mmiliki wa kweli Wa kampuni hii ni BARICK na hata kama swala lingeenda mahakamani mahakama ingelitambua hilo kupitia principle moja maarufu inayiotwa CORPORATE VEIL LIFTING...hii principle inatumiwa na mahakama kuzizuia kampuni kufanya udanganyifu wa kimaslahi ambao unaumiza upande mwingine.
Principle hii ilianza kutumika kwa mala ya kwanza kwenye case ya [Salomon v. Salomon and Co. Ltd. (1897) A.C 22] na lengo lake ni kamacase-laws.

The rationale behind this is probably that the law will not allow the corporate form to be misused or abused. In those circumstances in which the Court feels that the corporate form is being misused it will rip through the corporate veil and expose its true character and nature disregarding the Salomon principal as laid down by the House of Lords. Broadly there are two types of provisions for the lifting of the Corporate Veil- Judicial Provisions and Statutory Provisions. Judicial Provisions include Fraud, Character of Company, Protection of revenue, Single Economic Entity etc. while Statutory Provisions include Reduction in membership, Misdescription of name, Fraudulent conduct of business, Failure to refund application money, etc. This article at first introduces to the readers the concept of “Veil of incorporation", then it explains the meaning of the term-‘Lifting Of The Corporate Veil’, it then points out the Judicial as well as the Statutory provisions for Lifting of The Corporate Veil with the help of various case-laws.
Case hii ya makinikia ya Tanzania inafanana na cases zifuatazo..

The two classic cases of the fraud exception are Gilford Motor Company Ltd v. Horne and Jones v. Lipman. In the first case, Mr. Horne was an ex-employee of The Gilford motor company and his employment contract provided that he could not solicit the customers of the company. In order to defeat this, he incorporated a limited company in his wife's name and solicited the customers of the company. The company brought an action against him. The Court of appeal was of the view that "the company was formed as a device, a stratagem, in order to mask the effective carrying on of business of Mr. Horne" in this case it was clear that the main purpose of incorporating the new company was to perpetrate fraud. Thus the Court of appeal regarded it as a mere sham to cloak his wrongdoings.

In the second case of Jones v. Lipman, a man contracted to sell his land and thereafter changed his mind in order to avoid an order of specific performance he transferred his property to a company. Russel judge specifically referred to the judgments in Gilford v. Horne and held that the company here was "a mask which (Mr. Lipman) holds before his face in an attempt to avoid recognition by the eye of equity" .Therefore he awarded specific performance both against Mr.Lipman and the company.

FOR BENEFIT OF REVENUE-“The Court has the power to disregard corporate entity if it is used for tax evasion or to circumvent tax obligations. A clear illustration is Dinshaw Maneckjee Petit, Re;

The assesse was a wealthy man enjoying huge dividend and interest income. He formed four private companies and agreed with each to hold a block of investment as an agent for it. Income received was credited in the accounts of the company but the company handed back the amount to him as a pretended loan. This way he divided his income into four parts in a bid to reduce his tax liability.

But it was held that, “the company was formed by the assessee purely and simply as a means of avoiding super tax and the company was nothing more than the assessee himself. It did no business, but was created simply as a legal entity to ostensibly receive the dividends and interests and to hand them over to the assessee as pretended loans".

Hi principle ndio inamfanya mmiliki halali awe BARICK.. na sio ACACIA.

Naomba kwasilisha

 

[SubiriJibu]

A subsidiary is a company that is wholly owned or majority controlled by another company, the "parent." Companies form or purchase subsidiaries for various reasons, including expanding business operations and spreading the risk of liability by engaging in new lines of business.

Separate Entities
Both the parent and subsidiary are separate entities and independent of one another. In some cases, the parent is the sole shareholder of the subsidiary, while in others the parent owns more than 50 percent of the voting stock. In either scenario, the parent, like any shareholder, elects the board of directors which, in turn, selects the subsidiary's management team.

Management
The parent corporation organizes the subsidiary's management structure and company bylaws, setting forth rules related to corporate governance. The level of control the parent exerts over the subsidiary determines how independent both companies are when viewed by outsiders. If the parent commingles funds with the subsidiary, shares insurance contracts and employee benefit plans, markets both companies as a single entity, files consolidated income tax returns or acts as a creditor to the subsidiary, both companies will be viewed as a single entity. Such activities may cause liability issues for the parent, and a stakeholder (creditor or other party affected by the companies' business activities) can sue the parent for using the subsidiary to advance its own interests.

Liabilities
Parent companies -- the shareholders -- are not traditionally held liable for the debts or actions of their subsidiaries. However, under common law, a court may "pierce the corporate veil" of the parent if it finds an appearance of impropriety through questionable share transfers or other fraudulent means of avoiding the subsidiary's liabilities. Courts might also subordinate the parent's debts to outside creditors if the parent has engaged in unfair conduct, such as influencing new creditors to extend credit to the subsidiary while knowing the subsidiary's poor financial condition.

Independence
Although the parent/subsidiary relationship exists through ownership, it is imperative that both entities implement protective measures to prevent stakeholders from treating the entities as one company. The parent can ensure its subsidiary operates independently by delegating more control to the subsidiary's management team, reporting financials separately, and allowing the subsidiary to hire employees and conduct its business operations as an independent entity. By selecting a strong management team, the parent can ensure the subsidiary operates a successful business without exerting control over its day-to-day activities.

My friend nyabhingi,

If subsidiarity which is the whole concept of your reply then BARICK would appear in BRELA as a parent company and BARICK as subsidiary, but such is not the case.

 

[GreenCity]

Kwa uelewa wangu Wa sheria za makampuni..kwa swala hili la madini..mmiliki Wa kampuni wa usoni ni ACACIA..lakini mmiliki wa kweli Wa kampuni hii ni BARICK na hata kama swala lingeenda mahakamani mahakama ingelitambua hilo kupitia principle moja maarufu inayiotwa CORPORATE VEIL LIFTING...hii principle inatumiwa na mahakama kuzizuia kampuni kufanya udanganyifu wa kimaslahi ambao unaumiza upande mwingine.
Principle hii ilianza kutumika kwa mala ya kwanza kwenye case ya [Salomon v. Salomon and Co. Ltd. (1897) A.C 22] na lengo lake ni kamacase-laws.

The rationale behind this is probably that the law will not allow the corporate form to be misused or abused. In those circumstances in which the Court feels that the corporate form is being misused it will rip through the corporate veil and expose its true character and nature disregarding the Salomon principal as laid down by the House of Lords. Broadly there are two types of provisions for the lifting of the Corporate Veil- Judicial Provisions and Statutory Provisions. Judicial Provisions include Fraud, Character of Company, Protection of revenue, Single Economic Entity etc. while Statutory Provisions include Reduction in membership, Misdescription of name, Fraudulent conduct of business, Failure to refund application money, etc. This article at first introduces to the readers the concept of “Veil of incorporation", then it explains the meaning of the term-‘Lifting Of The Corporate Veil’, it then points out the Judicial as well as the Statutory provisions for Lifting of The Corporate Veil with the help of various case-laws.
Case hii ya makinikia ya Tanzania inafanana na cases zifuatazo..

The two classic cases of the fraud exception are Gilford Motor Company Ltd v. Horne and Jones v. Lipman. In the first case, Mr. Horne was an ex-employee of The Gilford motor company and his employment contract provided that he could not solicit the customers of the company. In order to defeat this, he incorporated a limited company in his wife's name and solicited the customers of the company. The company brought an action against him. The Court of appeal was of the view that "the company was formed as a device, a stratagem, in order to mask the effective carrying on of business of Mr. Horne" in this case it was clear that the main purpose of incorporating the new company was to perpetrate fraud. Thus the Court of appeal regarded it as a mere sham to cloak his wrongdoings.

In the second case of Jones v. Lipman, a man contracted to sell his land and thereafter changed his mind in order to avoid an order of specific performance he transferred his property to a company. Russel judge specifically referred to the judgments in Gilford v. Horne and held that the company here was "a mask which (Mr. Lipman) holds before his face in an attempt to avoid recognition by the eye of equity" .Therefore he awarded specific performance both against Mr.Lipman and the company.

FOR BENEFIT OF REVENUE-“The Court has the power to disregard corporate entity if it is used for tax evasion or to circumvent tax obligations. A clear illustration is Dinshaw Maneckjee Petit, Re;

The assesse was a wealthy man enjoying huge dividend and interest income. He formed four private companies and agreed with each to hold a block of investment as an agent for it. Income received was credited in the accounts of the company but the company handed back the amount to him as a pretended loan. This way he divided his income into four parts in a bid to reduce his tax liability.

But it was held that, “the company was formed by the assessee purely and simply as a means of avoiding super tax and the company was nothing more than the assessee himself. It did no business, but was created simply as a legal entity to ostensibly receive the dividends and interests and to hand them over to the assessee as pretended loans".

Hi principle ndio inamfanya mmiliki halali awe BARICK.. na sio ACACIA.

Naomba kwasilisha

Mbali na ku interpret vibaya kuhusu CORPORATE VEIL, at least unge acknowledge ulipo copy hayo maandishi! Its source is right there open!

 

[Jambazi]

16%+50/50+Mishahara=?

 

[Rutakyamilwa]

Personally bado naamini kuna kosa la kiufundi limefanyika mahala kwa upande wetu Tanzania na hatuna budi kurudi back to the drawing board ili turekebishe.

To some extent na hatua nzuri serikali imejaribu kuchukua manaake walau siku za usoni tunaweza sema tulidhubutu. Tatizo ni pale ambapo tumechukua hatua za udhubutu huku tukiwa na mihemuko ya juu sana kiasi kwamba tumetoka kwenye reli pasipo kushtuka.

Kutenda kosa sio kosa bali kurudia kosa. Hata baba wa taifa aliwahi kukiri kufanya makosa.

Lakini Lisu si alitutahadhalisha juu ya hayo tuliyoyafanya. Na akathubutu kutuambia nini la kufanya. Aliambulia nini?

 

[SubiriJibu]

Kwa uelewa wangu Wa sheria za makampuni..kwa swala hili la madini..mmiliki Wa kampuni wa usoni ni ACACIA..lakini mmiliki wa kweli Wa kampuni hii ni BARICK na hata kama swala lingeenda mahakamani mahakama ingelitambua hilo kupitia principle moja maarufu inayiotwa CORPORATE VEIL LIFTING...hii principle inatumiwa na mahakama kuzizuia kampuni kufanya udanganyifu wa kimaslahi ambao unaumiza upande mwingine.
Principle hii ilianza kutumika kwa mala ya kwanza kwenye case ya [Salomon v. Salomon and Co. Ltd. (1897) A.C 22] na lengo lake ni kamacase-laws.

Hi principle ndio inamfanya mmiliki halali awe BARICK.. na sio ACACIA.

Naomba kwasilisha

Mkuu, nimekusoma na hiyo principle nimeisoma. Kwa ujumla post yangu haina tatizo sana na "legal personality" ya BARICK lakini ninabahatisha sana "legal personality" ya ACACIA.

Msingi wangu unakuja kwamba hata baada ya mazungumzao, inaelekea mapambano sasa yamehamia kwa serikali ya Tanzania na ACACIA maana BARICk sasa wamekaa kimya.

Barick wamekaa kimya kwa sababu ya "obvious legal personality". Lakini ACACIA sasa wanatamba kwamba hadi waipitie na ikibidi kuikataa hiyo report na kama hawana legal personality hapo nchini nina mashaka kama tutawaweza.

Hebu angalia kiburi. Ulishaona wapi Rais wa nchi amesimamia kutiwa saini halafu ACACIA anasema hadi wakubali.

Hivyo tukijadili hivi basi ndugu zetu wenye sympathy za kisiasa kama huyu hapa chini ataona tatizo lilipo.

Personally bado naamini kuna kosa la kiufundi limefanyika mahala kwa upande wetu Tanzania na hatuna budi kurudi back to the drawing board ili turekebishe.

To some extent na hatua nzuri serikali imejaribu kuchukua manaake walau siku za usoni tunaweza sema tulidhubutu. Tatizo ni pale ambapo tumechukua hatua za udhubutu huku tukiwa na mihemuko ya juu sana kiasi kwamba tumetoka kwenye reli pasipo kushtuka.

Kutenda kosa sio kosa bali kurudia kosa. Hata baba wa taifa aliwahi kukiri kufanya makosa.

 

[SubiriJibu]

Mbali na ku interpret vibaya kuhusu CORPORATE VEIL, at least unge acknowledge ulipo copy hayo maandishi! Its source is right there open!

Mkuu, mimi sikuhangaika na acknowledge ya hayo aliyokopi kwa sababu natafuta uelewa. Lakini bado hayo maelezo hayajibu swali langu la "legal personality" kwa sababu ukisoma majibu ya huyu mheshimiwa anaeleza kama vile ACACIA walificha true identity lakini sivyo.

ACACIA hawakuficha walijionyesha na ndiyo maana wako DSE na TRA na mimi nimeuliza kama sheria za DSE zinatosha kuwapa "legal personality", basi.

 

[GalileiGalileo]

Lakini Lisu si alitutahadhalisha juu ya hayo tuliyoyafanya. Na akathubutu kutuambia nini la kufanya. Aliambulia nini?

Bam! Bam! Bam! Bam! Prrrrrrrrrrgh! Prrrrrrrrrrrgh! Bam! Bam! Bam! ,,.............

 

[lembu]

Acacia hawahitaji Legal Personality Tanzania kama ulivyotaja kwa sababu hawafanyi business Tanzania. Kampuni zenye kuhitaji hiyo legal personality ni makampuni ya uchimbaji ambazo ni Northmara, Buzwagi na Pangea. Ya Bulyankulu. Acacia wao wako listed tu kwenye masoko ya hisa na ndio maana waliwasilisha incorpiration docs BRELA ili waweze kuwa listed kenye soko la hisa la Dar.

 

[SubiriJibu]

Acacia hawahitaji Legal Personality Tanzania kama ulivyotaja kwa sababu hawafanyi business Tanzania. Kampuni zenye kuhitaji hiyo legal personality ni makampuni ya uchimbaji ambazo ni Northmara, Buzwagi na Pangea. Ya Bulyankulu. Acacia wao wako listed tu kwenye masoko ya hisa na ndio maana waliwasilisha incorpiration docs BRELA ili waweze kuwa listed kenye soko la hisa la Dar.

Haya ndiyo majibu tunayotaka hata kama bado nitaendelea kuhoji

i salute you mkuu.

 

[SubiriJibu]

Acacia hawahitaji Legal Personality Tanzania kama ulivyotaja kwa sababu hawafanyi business Tanzania. Kampuni zenye kuhitaji hiyo legal personality ni makampuni ya uchimbaji ambazo ni Northmara, Buzwagi na Pangea. Ya Bulyankulu. Acacia wao wako listed tu kwenye masoko ya hisa na ndio maana waliwasilisha incorpiration docs BRELA ili waweze kuwa listed kenye soko la hisa la Dar.

Mkuu sasa nikuulize kitu kingine.

Hivi katika kuuziana hisa kama pale DSE mkikorofishana au kudhulumiana, si mtapelekana mahakamani. Je, hiyo pekee siyo quality of legal personality?

 

[kambi7]

Kwa uelewa wangu Wa sheria za makampuni..kwa swala hili la madini..mmiliki Wa kampuni wa usoni ni ACACIA..lakini mmiliki wa kweli Wa kampuni hii ni BARICK na hata kama swala lingeenda mahakamani mahakama ingelitambua hilo kupitia principle moja maarufu inayiotwa CORPORATE VEIL LIFTING...hii principle inatumiwa na mahakama kuzizuia kampuni kufanya udanganyifu wa kimaslahi ambao unaumiza upande mwingine.
Principle hii ilianza kutumika kwa mala ya kwanza kwenye case ya [Salomon v. Salomon and Co. Ltd. (1897) A.C 22] na lengo lake ni kamacase-laws.

The rationale behind this is probably that the law will not allow the corporate form to be misused or abused. In those circumstances in which the Court feels that the corporate form is being misused it will rip through the corporate veil and expose its true character and nature disregarding the Salomon principal as laid down by the House of Lords. Broadly there are two types of provisions for the lifting of the Corporate Veil- Judicial Provisions and Statutory Provisions. Judicial Provisions include Fraud, Character of Company, Protection of revenue, Single Economic Entity etc. while Statutory Provisions include Reduction in membership, Misdescription of name, Fraudulent conduct of business, Failure to refund application money, etc. This article at first introduces to the readers the concept of “Veil of incorporation", then it explains the meaning of the term-‘Lifting Of The Corporate Veil’, it then points out the Judicial as well as the Statutory provisions for Lifting of The Corporate Veil with the help of various case-laws.
Case hii ya makinikia ya Tanzania inafanana na cases zifuatazo..

The two classic cases of the fraud exception are Gilford Motor Company Ltd v. Horne and Jones v. Lipman. In the first case, Mr. Horne was an ex-employee of The Gilford motor company and his employment contract provided that he could not solicit the customers of the company. In order to defeat this, he incorporated a limited company in his wife's name and solicited the customers of the company. The company brought an action against him. The Court of appeal was of the view that "the company was formed as a device, a stratagem, in order to mask the effective carrying on of business of Mr. Horne" in this case it was clear that the main purpose of incorporating the new company was to perpetrate fraud. Thus the Court of appeal regarded it as a mere sham to cloak his wrongdoings.

In the second case of Jones v. Lipman, a man contracted to sell his land and thereafter changed his mind in order to avoid an order of specific performance he transferred his property to a company. Russel judge specifically referred to the judgments in Gilford v. Horne and held that the company here was "a mask which (Mr. Lipman) holds before his face in an attempt to avoid recognition by the eye of equity" .Therefore he awarded specific performance both against Mr.Lipman and the company.

FOR BENEFIT OF REVENUE-“The Court has the power to disregard corporate entity if it is used for tax evasion or to circumvent tax obligations. A clear illustration is Dinshaw Maneckjee Petit, Re;

The assesse was a wealthy man enjoying huge dividend and interest income. He formed four private companies and agreed with each to hold a block of investment as an agent for it. Income received was credited in the accounts of the company but the company handed back the amount to him as a pretended loan. This way he divided his income into four parts in a bid to reduce his tax liability.

But it was held that, “the company was formed by the assessee purely and simply as a means of avoiding super tax and the company was nothing more than the assessee himself. It did no business, but was created simply as a legal entity to ostensibly receive the dividends and interests and to hand them over to the assessee as pretended loans".

Hi principle ndio inamfanya mmiliki halali awe BARICK.. na sio ACACIA.

Naomba kwasilisha

Mkuu umewiva

 

[lembu]

Kwa kuongeza mmiliki wa hisa hana mandate ya kisheria ya kuamua juu ya management decisions. Wenye mandate ni bodi. Kwa hiyo baada ya Barrick kuafiki makubaliano, bodi ya Acacia ambayo ndio walipaji walitakiwa kutolea maamuzi. Hii n normal procedure sehemu nyingi duniani. Ni mapena kusema kuwa Acacia wamegoma kulipa au la. Barick kama mmiliki wa hisa nyingi anaweza akavnja bodi na kuweka nyingine

 

[SubiriJibu]

Kwa kuongeza mmiliki wa hisa hana mandate ya kisheria ya kuamua juu ya management decisions. Wenye mandate ni bodi. Kwa hiyo baada ya Barrick kuafiki makubaliano, bodi ya Acacia ambayo ndio walipaji walitakiwa kutolea maamuzi. Hii n normal procedure sehemu nyingi duniani. Ni mapena kusema kuwa Acacia wamegoma kulipa au la. Barick kama mmiliki wa hisa nyingi anaweza akavnja bodi na kuweka nyingine

Basi maana yake hapa kumbe hatukucheza na facts bali tumecheza bahati nasibu kwamba BARICK ni majority share holder tukidhani kwamba minoroty haiwezi kuzuia na kuleta hoja mpya.

Kumbe ukweli ni kwamba hata minority ya ACACIA yaani wale 36.1% wanaweza kusema tofauti na tulichokubaliana na bodi ya ACACIA inaweza kusema tofauti kiasi cha kuwa-convince majorities na maamuzi yakapinduliwa waziwazi au kimyakimya.

 

[mwengeso]

Kulingana na ripoti ya pili ya tume ya makinikia, iliyobeba wataalamu wa sheria na uchumi, walibaini kuwa ACACIA haijasajiliwa na BRELA. Kwa msingi huo haipashwi kujihusisha na shughuli za uchimbaji madini. Ila ACACIA imesajiriwa na Soko la hisa hivyo ni halali kufanya bashara ya hisa.

Mizengwe iliyogundulika kwamba ACACIA inajihusisha na biashara ya madini, kinyume na sheria, ilimlazimisha mmiliki wa Barrick kuja haraka haraka.

Kwa mantiki hiyo, kufanya majadiliano na Barrick ni sahihi kabisa. Nani atalipa deni tunalodai, Barrick na ACACIA watajuana wao, kama waliuziana share au la, imekula kwao.

Mchezo wa Barrick na ACACIA unatukumbusha jinsi Makampuni ya nje nchini yanavyo uziana shares na Serikali inakaa kimya. Natumaini tunakumbuka sakata ka IPTL, Richmond, Dowans. mahotel ya Serena, Kilimanjaro, na utitiri wa makampuni kubadilishana ili wakwepe kodi.

Serikali ilijua mchezo huo lakini, walioko madarakani walifumba macho na masikio. Serikali iliyoko madarakani imeahidi kufunua kila jiwe.

Hivyo basi, lugha za sheria wanaJf wanazotuwekea humu, nawashauri wazipeleke kunakohusika.

 

[GreenCity]

Mkuu, mimi sikuhangaika na acknowledge ya hayo aliyokopi kwa sababu natafuta uelewa. Lakini bado hayo maelezo hayajibu swali langu la "legal personality" kwa sababu ukisoma majibu ya huyu mheshimiwa anaeleza kama vile ACACIA walificha true identity lakini sivyo.

ACACIA hawakuficha walijionyesha na ndiyo maana wako DSE na TRA na mimi nimeuliza kama sheria za DSE zinatosha kuwapa "legal personality", basi.

Mkuu Subirijibu ! Legal personality katika kile kinachojiri sasa, ni kwamba; kuna maeneo mengi sana ambayo huwezi kusema ACACIA hawana legal personality, kwa mifano :

1. ACACIA wameajiri watu hapa Tanzania. Ikitokea kuna migogoro wa kikazi (labor dispute), waajiriwa hawawezi kupoteza haki zao za kuishtaki ACACIA kisa tu haina Certificate of Incorporation. So Labor Laws (hasa Employment and Labor Relations Act, 2004) zinaitambua na kuipa legal personality ACACIA.

2. MIFUKO YA HIFADHI YA JAMII, haibishaniwi kuwa ACACIA imeingia. Mikataba na MIFUKO ya hifadhi ya jamii Tanzania. Ikitokea ACACIA hawajawasilisha makato ya waajiriwa kwenye mfuko husika, watashtakiwa. Na Ikitokea MIFUKO husika ime misappropriate michango ya ACACIA, ACACIA wanaweza kuishtaki MIFUKO, accordingly. So sheria ya MIFUKO (SOCIAL SECURITY REGULATORY AUTHORITY ACT) imewapa ACACIA legal personality.

3. TRA wanakusanya kodi ya mapato kwa ACACIA, both corporate taxes na income tax. ACACIA Wanaweza kumshtaki commissioner wa TRA ikitokea kodi yao imekuwa misappropriated. So the Income Tax Act inawapa TRA legal personality.

4. DSE inawapa ACACIA legal personality.

5. Sheria iliyounda Tanzania Investment Center (TIC) inawapa ACACIA legal personality.

6. Local Government Authorities Act inawapa ACACIA legal personality.

7. The list is not short!

 

[olyanu]

Personally bado naamini kuna kosa la kiufundi limefanyika mahala kwa upande wetu Tanzania na hatuna budi kurudi back to the drawing board ili turekebishe.

To some extent na hatua nzuri serikali imejaribu kuchukua manaake walau siku za usoni tunaweza sema tulidhubutu. Tatizo ni pale ambapo tumechukua hatua za udhubutu huku tukiwa na mihemuko ya juu sana kiasi kwamba tumetoka kwenye reli pasipo kushtuka.

Kutenda kosa sio kosa bali kurudia kosa. Hata baba wa taifa aliwahi kukiri kufanya makosa.

Je huko baadaye kuna mahali upo mgodi ulio idle? Ambao haujaingiwa mkataba? Uko wapi? Lazima tukubaliane tumeshaliwa na wale ambao hatuwezi kuwahoji kwa sasa maana tunawalinda kwa kazi njema waliyolifanyia taifa kutuingiza mkenge