N

N

The agreement to transfer the right of occupancy was void for lack of written form and statutory approval; specific performance cannot be ordered, but the respondent is entitled to compensation for improvements made to the property.

Citation
N
Parties
Appellant: J.M. Kasuka; Respondent: George Humba
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
3 August 1988
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Void Agreements, Compensation for Improvements, Transfer of Right of Occupancy
Source Language
English
Contract Law Land Law Specific Performance Void Agreements Compensation for Improvements Transfer of Right of Occupancy

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J.M. Kasuka

Appellant

George Humba

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the agreement to transfer the right of occupancy was enforceable
  2. 2 Whether the agreement was in writing as required by law
  3. 3 Whether the respondent is entitled to specific performance or compensation

Ratio Decidendi

The agreement to transfer the right of occupancy was void for lack of written form and statutory approval; specific performance cannot be ordered, but the respondent is entitled to compensation for improvements made to the property.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Order of specific performance quashed
  • High Court directed to determine and award compensation to the respondent for the present pecuniary value of the house built on the land