hidaya shukuru vs joyce joseph 5 others 2023 tzhclandd 16405 28 march 2023

hidaya shukuru vs joyce joseph 5 others 2023 tzhclandd 16405 28 march 2023

Respondents, as trespassers, are not entitled to compensation for improvements made on the suit land; the trial tribunal erred in awarding such compensation as the claim was neither pleaded nor supported by evidence.

Citation
hidaya shukuru vs joyce joseph 5 others 2023 tzhclandd 16405 28 march 2023
Parties
Appellant: Hida ya Shukuru; 1st Respondent: Joyce Joseph; 2nd Respondent: Ally Mohamed Mkala; 3rd Respondent: Zainabu Abdallah Msekela; 4th Respondent: Robert Edward Maswanya; 5th Respondent: Michael Maziku; 6th Respondent: Nassoro Khamis Ahmed
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
28 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Land Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed to the extent explained; judgment, decree, and proceedings of the DLHT for Ilala quashed and set aside; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Ownership, Trespass, Compensation for Improvements, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Land Law Ownership Trespass Compensation for Improvements Burden of Proof

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hida ya Shukuru

Appellant

Joyce Joseph

1st Respondent

Ally Mohamed Mkala

2nd Respondent

Zainabu Abdallah Msekela

3rd Respondent

Robert Edward Maswanya

4th Respondent

Michael Maziku

5th Respondent

Nassoro Khamis Ahmed

6th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Land Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial tribunal erred in ordering the appellant to pay compensation for improvements to respondents deemed trespassers
  2. 2 Whether respondents were entitled to compensation for improvements made on the suit land

Ratio Decidendi

Respondents, as trespassers, are not entitled to compensation for improvements made on the suit land; the trial tribunal erred in awarding such compensation as the claim was neither pleaded nor supported by evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed to the extent explained; judgment, decree, and proceedings of the DLHT for Ilala quashed and set aside; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Judgment, decree, and proceedings of the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Ilala quashed and set aside
  • No order as to costs