gloria paul kessy vs andrew obunde 2 others 2023 tzhclandd 17105 24 october 2023

gloria paul kessy vs andrew obunde 2 others 2023 tzhclandd 17105 24 october 2023

Appellant failed to prove valid title to the disputed land; evidence showed 2nd respondent was allocated land by Mapinga Village Council and 3rd respondent lawfully acquired it. Sale agreement between appellant and alleged seller was void ab initio as seller had no good title. DLHT properly evaluated evidence but erred by deciding on six acres instead of three; only three acres were subject of dispute.

Citation
gloria paul kessy vs andrew obunde 2 others 2023 tzhclandd 17105 24 october 2023
Parties
Appellant: Gloria Paul Kessy; 1st Respondent: Andrew Obunde; 2nd Respondent: Maimuna S. Magoti; 3rd Respondent: Sara Elight Edebe
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
24 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Land Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed with costs, save for substitution of six acres with three acres in DLHT holding
Legal Topics
Ownership, Sale Agreement, Allocation of Village Land, Burden of Proof, Admissibility of Evidence
Source Language
English
Land Law Ownership Sale Agreement Allocation of Village Land Burden of Proof Admissibility of Evidence

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gloria Paul Kessy

Appellant

Andrew Obunde

1st Respondent

Maimuna S. Magoti

2nd Respondent

Sara Elight Edebe

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Land Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is the lawful owner of the disputed land
  2. 2 Whether the sale agreement between appellant and alleged seller was valid
  3. 3 Whether the respondents manufactured evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Appellant failed to prove valid title to the disputed land; evidence showed 2nd respondent was allocated land by Mapinga Village Council and 3rd respondent lawfully acquired it. Sale agreement between appellant and alleged seller was void ab initio as seller had no good title. DLHT properly evaluated evidence but erred by deciding on six acres instead of three; only three acres were subject of dispute.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with costs, save for substitution of six acres with three acres in DLHT holding

Orders

  • Quash and set aside DLHT holding regarding six acres; substitute with three acres as per application
  • Parties may pursue rights on remaining land not pleaded