charles gwaru vs faustin fobesh 2 others 2022 tzhc 808 31 march 2022

charles gwaru vs faustin fobesh 2 others 2022 tzhc 808 31 march 2022

The appellant failed to tender the original allocation agreement as evidence and did not meet the required standard of proof. The respondents' documentary and oral evidence of purchase and occupancy was credible. Attachments to pleadings are not evidence unless formally admitted. The trial tribunal was justified in deciding for the respondents.

Citation
charles gwaru vs faustin fobesh 2 others 2022 tzhc 808 31 march 2022
Parties
Appellant: Charles Gwaru; 1st Respondent: Faustin Fobesh; 2nd Respondent: Emanu Namson; 3rd Respondent: Safari Nyora
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
31 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Land Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Trespass, Gift of Land, Burden of Proof, Documentary Evidence, Customary Right of Occupancy
Source Language
English
Land Law Trespass Gift of Land Burden of Proof Documentary Evidence Customary Right of Occupancy

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Gwaru

Appellant

Faustin Fobesh

1st Respondent

Emanu Namson

2nd Respondent

Safari Nyora

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Land Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant proved ownership of the disputed land to the required standard
  2. 2 Whether the trial tribunal erred in relying on documentary evidence
  3. 3 Whether the respondents lawfully acquired the land from a third party

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to tender the original allocation agreement as evidence and did not meet the required standard of proof. The respondents' documentary and oral evidence of purchase and occupancy was credible. Attachments to pleadings are not evidence unless formally admitted. The trial tribunal was justified in deciding for the respondents.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Decision of the trial tribunal and its ancillary orders upheld
  • Appellant to bear the costs of the appeal