fransisca n mukajuna vs francis m makassy 2022 tzhc 3074 21 march 2022

fransisca n mukajuna vs francis m makassy 2022 tzhc 3074 21 march 2022

The court found that a partnership existed by implication based on the conduct of the parties and joint business activities. Properties acquired in the names of both parties or through partnership proceeds are to be shared equally. The partnership was dissolved by conduct upon breakdown of the relationship.

Citation
fransisca n mukajuna vs francis m makassy 2022 tzhc 3074 21 march 2022
Parties
Plaintiff: Fransisca N. Mukajuna; Defendant: Francis M. Makassy
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
21 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Suit allowed in part
Legal Topics
Existence of Partnership, Dissolution of Partnership, Distribution of Partnership Assets, Joint Ownership of Property, Informal Partnerships
Source Language
English
Partnership Law Property Law Existence of Partnership Dissolution of Partnership Distribution of Partnership Assets Joint Ownership of Property Informal Partnerships

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fransisca N. Mukajuna

Plaintiff

Francis M. Makassy

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a partnership existed between the parties
  2. 2 Whether properties were acquired during the partnership
  3. 3 What caused the breakdown of the relationship

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that a partnership existed by implication based on the conduct of the parties and joint business activities. Properties acquired in the names of both parties or through partnership proceeds are to be shared equally. The partnership was dissolved by conduct upon breakdown of the relationship.

Court Disposition

Suit allowed in part

Orders

  • Plaintiff and defendant are each entitled to a 50% share in all landed properties with documents in their joint names acquired before 2006 and through partnership proceeds.
  • An independent valuer agreeable to both parties shall be hired at their joint expense to evaluate the partnership properties for equal division.