elias edward mayunga vs ernest massae and another 2020 tzhclandd 3995 11 december 2020

elias edward mayunga vs ernest massae and another 2020 tzhclandd 3995 11 december 2020

The appellant did not lawfully acquire the land as there was no proof of abandonment for the statutory period, and the reallocation by the Goba Village Council was unlawful. The land was properly restored to the 2nd respondent, who remains the lawful owner.

Citation
elias edward mayunga vs ernest massae and another 2020 tzhclandd 3995 11 december 2020
Parties
Appellant: Elias Edward Mayunga; 1st Respondent: Ernest Massae; 2nd Respondent: Mwantumu Ally
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
11 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Land Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Ownership of Land, Abandonment of Land, Village Land Act, Procedural Impropriety in Land Allocation
Source Language
English
Land Law Ownership of Land Abandonment of Land Village Land Act Procedural Impropriety in Land Allocation

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elias Edward Mayunga

Appellant

Ernest Massae

1st Respondent

Mwantumu Ally

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Land Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant lawfully acquired the suit land from the Goba Village Council
  2. 2 Whether the land was abandoned for the statutory period to justify reallocation
  3. 3 Whether the 2nd respondent's ownership was properly revoked

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant did not lawfully acquire the land as there was no proof of abandonment for the statutory period, and the reallocation by the Goba Village Council was unlawful. The land was properly restored to the 2nd respondent, who remains the lawful owner.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed
  • The 2nd respondent remains the lawful owner of the suit property