leonard elimsu urio 2023 tzhc 23207 30 november 2023

leonard elimsu urio 2023 tzhc 23207 30 november 2023

The 2nd and 3rd respondents did not acquire good title to the property as they failed to pay the full purchase price and did not register the sale agreement; therefore, they could not transfer title to the appellant. The appellant is a trespasser, and the 1st respondent remains the lawful owner.

Citation
leonard elimsu urio 2023 tzhc 23207 30 november 2023
Parties
Appellant: Leonard Elimsu Urio; 1st Respondent: Selestine Cletus Luselo; 2nd Respondent: Maselina Saimon Fikioni; 3rd Respondent: Robert Tembe
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
30 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Land Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Transfer of Title, Breach of Contract, Registration of Land Documents, Caveat Emptor, Remedies for Breach
Source Language
English
Land Law Contract Law Transfer of Title Breach of Contract Registration of Land Documents Caveat Emptor Remedies for Breach

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leonard Elimsu Urio

Appellant

Selestine Cletus Luselo

1st Respondent

Maselina Saimon Fikioni

2nd Respondent

Robert Tembe

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Land Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant acquired good title to the property through purchase from the 2nd and 3rd respondents
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd and 3rd respondents had good title to sell the property to the appellant
  3. 3 Whether the trial Tribunal erred in declaring the 1st respondent as lawful owner and the appellant as trespasser

Ratio Decidendi

The 2nd and 3rd respondents did not acquire good title to the property as they failed to pay the full purchase price and did not register the sale agreement; therefore, they could not transfer title to the appellant. The appellant is a trespasser, and the 1st respondent remains the lawful owner.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The 1st respondent remains the lawful owner of the property at Leseni ya Makazi No. 1045, House No. 1045 Mafisa Area, Morogoro Municipality.
  • The appellant is declared a trespasser.