abdallah hussein magari vs marcel richard chami 2021 tzhclandd 99 15 march 2021

abdallah hussein magari vs marcel richard chami 2021 tzhclandd 99 15 march 2021

The trial tribunal erred by relying on unreliable and contradictory documentary evidence presented by the 1st respondent, failed to consider credible evidence and documents presented by the appellant, and did not properly evaluate the burden of proof. The 1st respondent failed to prove ownership on the balance of probabilities, and the appellant's ownership was supported by unchallenged evidence.

Citation
abdallah hussein magari vs marcel richard chami 2021 tzhclandd 99 15 march 2021
Parties
Appellant: Abdallah Hussein Magari; 1st Respondent: Marcel Richard Chami; 2nd Respondent: Salum Mustapha Kunambi
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
15 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Land Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Ownership Dispute, Burden of Proof, Documentary Evidence, Forgery, Appellate Review
Source Language
English
Land Law Ownership Dispute Burden of Proof Documentary Evidence Forgery Appellate Review

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdallah Hussein Magari

Appellant

Marcel Richard Chami

1st Respondent

Salum Mustapha Kunambi

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Land Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial tribunal erred in declaring the 1st respondent the lawful owner of the suit land
  2. 2 Whether the evidence and documents relied upon by the trial tribunal were reliable and authentic
  3. 3 Whether the appellant proved ownership of the disputed land

Ratio Decidendi

The trial tribunal erred by relying on unreliable and contradictory documentary evidence presented by the 1st respondent, failed to consider credible evidence and documents presented by the appellant, and did not properly evaluate the burden of proof. The 1st respondent failed to prove ownership on the balance of probabilities, and the appellant's ownership was supported by unchallenged evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment and decree of the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Morogoro quashed and set aside
  • Appellant declared lawful owner of the disputed land