enita sambona vs saita sibati 2015 tzhc 2269 21 may 2015

enita sambona vs saita sibati 2015 tzhc 2269 21 may 2015

The requirement for written contracts under Section 64(1) of the Land Act does not apply retrospectively to transactions concluded before the law came into force. The respondent proved on the balance of probabilities that she purchased and possessed the land for over 16 years. The appellant is barred by limitation and the principle of adverse possession from reclaiming the land.

Citation
enita sambona vs saita sibati 2015 tzhc 2269 21 may 2015
Parties
Appellant: Enita Sam Boma; Respondent: Saita Sibati
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
21 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Land Appeal / Second Appeal From District Land and Housing Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Sale of Land, Limitation of Actions, Retrospective Application of Statute
Source Language
English
Land Law Adverse Possession Sale of Land Limitation of Actions Retrospective Application of Statute

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

Parties

Enita Sam Boma

Appellant

Saita Sibati

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Land Appeal / Second Appeal From District Land and Housing Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent lawfully owns the disputed land despite lack of written sale agreement
  2. 2 Whether the law requiring written contracts for land disposition applies retrospectively
  3. 3 Whether the respondent acquired ownership by adverse possession

Ratio Decidendi

The requirement for written contracts under Section 64(1) of the Land Act does not apply retrospectively to transactions concluded before the law came into force. The respondent proved on the balance of probabilities that she purchased and possessed the land for over 16 years. The appellant is barred by limitation and the principle of adverse possession from reclaiming the land.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal is upheld.
  • Appeal dismissed with costs.