kaunda obando vs yunes sese 2020 tzhc 4214 10 december 2020

kaunda obando vs yunes sese 2020 tzhc 4214 10 december 2020

The appellate tribunal properly considered submissions and evidence, did not manufacture evidence, and gave reasons for differing with assessors. The respondent was allocated the disputed land by village authority and has occupied it for over 12 years, acquiring title by adverse possession. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.

Citation
kaunda obando vs yunes sese 2020 tzhc 4214 10 december 2020
Parties
Appellant: Kaunda Obando; Respondent: Yunes Sese
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
10 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Land Appeal / Second Appeal, Judgment Delivered
Outcome
appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Ownership, Adverse Possession, Allocation of Land, Operation Vijiji, Tribunal Procedure
Source Language
English
Land Law Ownership Adverse Possession Allocation of Land Operation Vijiji Tribunal Procedure

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kaunda Obando

Appellant

Yunes Sese

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Land Appeal / Second Appeal, Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether the appellate tribunal properly considered and analyzed the grounds of appeal and submissions
  2. 2 whether the appellate tribunal manufactured its own evidence
  3. 3 whether the chairman gave reasons for differing with assessors

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate tribunal properly considered submissions and evidence, did not manufacture evidence, and gave reasons for differing with assessors. The respondent was allocated the disputed land by village authority and has occupied it for over 12 years, acquiring title by adverse possession. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • respondent declared owner of disputed land
  • appeal dismissed for want of merit