emmanuel emmanuel vs michael gishingde 2011 tzhclandd 10 13 december 2011

emmanuel emmanuel vs michael gishingde 2011 tzhclandd 10 13 december 2011

The appellant failed to prove ownership of the disputed land on the balance of probabilities and lacked locus standi over 12 acres, which belonged to his father and had been given to the respondent, who acquired title by prescription after 15 years of undisturbed occupation. The claim was time-barred under the Law of Limitation Act.

Citation
emmanuel emmanuel vs michael gishingde 2011 tzhclandd 10 13 december 2011
Parties
Appellant: Emmanuel Emmanuel; Respondent: Michael Gishingde
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
13 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Land Appeal / Second Appeal (high Court) From District Land and Housing Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; decision of District Land and Housing Tribunal upheld.
Legal Topics
Locus Standi, Limitation of Actions, Burden of Proof, Title by Prescription
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Locus Standi Limitation of Actions Burden of Proof Title by Prescription

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emmanuel Emmanuel

Appellant

Michael Gishingde

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Land Appeal / Second Appeal (high Court) From District Land and Housing Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first appellate tribunal erred in not holding the appeal incompetent for lack of application to set aside ex-parte decision
  2. 2 Whether the first appellate tribunal erred in declaring the respondent owner of the land without evidence from his side
  3. 3 Whether the appellant had locus standi and proved ownership of the disputed land

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to prove ownership of the disputed land on the balance of probabilities and lacked locus standi over 12 acres, which belonged to his father and had been given to the respondent, who acquired title by prescription after 15 years of undisturbed occupation. The claim was time-barred under the Law of Limitation Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; decision of District Land and Housing Tribunal upheld.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Decision of District Land and Housing Tribunal upheld