imani ya kinamama vs registered board of trustees of chama cha mapinduzi and 2 others 2023 tzhc 17955 13 june 2023

imani ya kinamama vs registered board of trustees of chama cha mapinduzi and 2 others 2023 tzhc 17955 13 june 2023

The appellant failed to prove ownership of the disputed land as she was not a registered entity at the time of purported allocation, and payment of fees was made outside the prescribed period, invalidating the offer. The burden of proof remained on the appellant, who did not discharge it. The trial tribunal's decision was correct in law and fact.

Citation
imani ya kinamama vs registered board of trustees of chama cha mapinduzi and 2 others 2023 tzhc 17955 13 june 2023
Parties
Appellant: Imani ya Kinamama; 1st Respondent: Registered Board of Trustees of Chama Cha Mapinduzi; 2nd Respondent: Registered Trustees of UWT; 3rd Respondent: Vietel (T) Limited
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
13 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Land Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Ownership of Land, Burden of Proof, Registration of Entities, Acceptance of Offer, Documentary Evidence
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Ownership of Land Burden of Proof Registration of Entities Acceptance of Offer Documentary 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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Imani ya Kinamama

Appellant

Registered Board of Trustees of Chama Cha Mapinduzi

1st Respondent

Registered Trustees of UWT

2nd Respondent

Vietel (T) Limited

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Land Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant proved ownership of the disputed land on a balance of probabilities
  2. 2 Whether failure to register at the time of acquisition invalidated appellant's claim
  3. 3 Whether payment of fees outside the prescribed period invalidated the allocation

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to prove ownership of the disputed land as she was not a registered entity at the time of purported allocation, and payment of fees was made outside the prescribed period, invalidating the offer. The burden of proof remained on the appellant, who did not discharge it. The trial tribunal's decision was correct in law and fact.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • decision of the trial tribunal upheld
  • no order as to costs