saidi hussein another vs imani kiriani 2023 tzhclandd 17236 20 december 2023

saidi hussein another vs imani kiriani 2023 tzhclandd 17236 20 december 2023

The agreed monthly rent was Tshs. 60,000/= as evidenced by the written lease. The respondent failed to prove a different rent. The lease period expired on 30th September 2019, after which the respondent became a trespasser. The appellants' act of locking the premises by welding the gate was unjustifiable and unlawful, but the respondent failed to strictly prove specific or general damages. The tribunal erred in awarding such damages without sufficient evidence.

Citation
saidi hussein another vs imani kiriani 2023 tzhclandd 17236 20 december 2023
Parties
1st Appellant: Said Hussein; 2nd Appellant: Saumu Omary; Respondent: Imani Kiriani
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
20 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Land Appeal / Judgment on First Appeal
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed.
Legal Topics
Lease Termination, Trespass, Damages, Eviction Procedures
Source Language
English
Land Law Lease Termination Trespass Damages Eviction Procedures

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Said Hussein

1st Appellant

Saumu Omary

2nd Appellant

Imani Kiriani

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Land Appeal / Judgment on First Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What was the agreed monthly rent between the parties?
  2. 2 Whether the act of the appellants to lock the business premises by welding the gate was justifiable?
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was entitled to specific and general damages awarded by the tribunal?

Ratio Decidendi

The agreed monthly rent was Tshs. 60,000/= as evidenced by the written lease. The respondent failed to prove a different rent. The lease period expired on 30th September 2019, after which the respondent became a trespasser. The appellants' act of locking the premises by welding the gate was unjustifiable and unlawful, but the respondent failed to strictly prove specific or general damages. The tribunal erred in awarding such damages without sufficient evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed.

Orders

  • Specific and general damages awarded to the respondent by the tribunal are set aside.
  • Appellants to unlock the business premises and allow the respondent to take her belongings immediately.