geita gold mining limited vs twalib ismail others 2021 tzca 3526 3 december 2021

geita gold mining limited vs twalib ismail others 2021 tzca 3526 3 december 2021

The appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof to show that the respondents were trespassers or that they had been compensated for the land. The evidence was insufficient to establish the boundaries of the land or the respondents' presence within the mining licence area. The concurrent findings of the lower courts were justified and not to be disturbed.

Citation
geita gold mining limited vs twalib ismail others 2021 tzca 3526 3 december 2021
Parties
Appellant: Geita Gold Mining Limited; Respondent: Twalib Ismail; Respondent: Andrea Hassan Ikoza; Respondent: Hamis Mganja; Respondent: Christopher Tarimo Erick
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
3 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal (court of Appeal)
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Burden of Proof, Trespass to Land, Compensation for Land Acquisition, Ownership Dispute
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Burden of Proof Trespass to Land Compensation for Land Acquisition Ownership Dispute

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Geita Gold Mining Limited

Appellant

Twalib Ismail

Respondent

Andrea Hassan Ikoza

Respondent

Hamis Mganja

Respondent

Christopher Tarimo Erick

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Second Appeal (court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant proved that the respondents were trespassers on its mining land.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant proved that the respondents had been compensated for the land in question.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof to show that the respondents were trespassers or that they had been compensated for the land. The evidence was insufficient to establish the boundaries of the land or the respondents' presence within the mining licence area. The concurrent findings of the lower courts were justified and not to be disturbed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.