bilali ally kinguti vs ahadi lulela said others 2023 tzca 17337 13 june 2023

bilali ally kinguti vs ahadi lulela said others 2023 tzca 17337 13 june 2023

The appellant failed to prove fraud or unlawful survey; the 2nd respondent holds a valid certificate of title and is the lawful owner. The suit was not vitiated by inclusion of the 5th respondent as death was not proven. The appellant had no good title to pass to the 1st respondent, justifying refund and damages.

Citation
bilali ally kinguti vs ahadi lulela said others 2023 tzca 17337 13 june 2023
Parties
Appellant: Bilali Ally Kinguti; 1st Respondent: Ahadi Lulela Said; 2nd Respondent: The Registered Trustees of Vincentian Congregation; 3rd Respondent: Kigoma Ujiji Municipal Council; 4th Respondent: Attorney General; 5th Respondent: Feruzi Baraka (Administrator of the estate of the late Hamis Baraka, the deceased)
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
13 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Title to Land, Fraud, Bonafide Purchaser, Survey and Allocation, Refund of Purchase Price, General Damages
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Title to Land Fraud Bonafide Purchaser Survey and Allocation Refund of Purchase Price General Damages

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bilali Ally Kinguti

Appellant

Ahadi Lulela Said

1st Respondent

The Registered Trustees of Vincentian Congregation

2nd Respondent

Kigoma Ujiji Municipal Council

3rd Respondent

Attorney General

4th Respondent

Feruzi Baraka (Administrator of the estate of the late Hamis Baraka, the deceased)

5th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suit was vitiated by inclusion of a deceased party
  2. 2 Who is the lawful owner of the disputed property
  3. 3 Whether the certificate of title was lawfully obtained

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to prove fraud or unlawful survey; the 2nd respondent holds a valid certificate of title and is the lawful owner. The suit was not vitiated by inclusion of the 5th respondent as death was not proven. The appellant had no good title to pass to the 1st respondent, justifying refund and damages.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant to refund TZS 28,000,000.00 to 1st respondent
  • Appellant to pay TZS 5,000,000.00 as general damages to 1st respondent