geita gold mining ltd another vs ignas athanas 2019 tzca 55 6 april 2019

geita gold mining ltd another vs ignas athanas 2019 tzca 55 6 april 2019

The burden of proof regarding compensation lay with the appellants, but the respondent failed to prove special damages. The High Court erred in ordering a re-trial instead of dismissing the claim for special damages.

Citation
geita gold mining ltd another vs ignas athanas 2019 tzca 55 6 april 2019
Parties
Appellant: Geita Gold Mining Ltd; Appellant: Managing Director GGM; Respondent: Ignas Athanas
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
6 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed with costs
Legal Topics
Burden of Proof, Special Damages, Compensation for Land, Re Trial Orders
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Burden of Proof Special Damages Compensation for Land Re Trial Orders

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Geita Gold Mining Ltd

Appellant

Managing Director GGM

Appellant

Ignas Athanas

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Second Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the burden of proof was correctly placed regarding compensation for land and destroyed crops
  2. 2 Whether the order for re-trial was appropriate after failure to prove special damages

Ratio Decidendi

The burden of proof regarding compensation lay with the appellants, but the respondent failed to prove special damages. The High Court erred in ordering a re-trial instead of dismissing the claim for special damages.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed with costs

Orders

  • High Court order for re-trial set aside
  • Respondent's claim for special damages dismissed