mweha hamis vs the permanent secretary the mininistry of infrastructure development 2018 tzhclandd 30 23 february 2018

mweha hamis vs the permanent secretary the mininistry of infrastructure development 2018 tzhclandd 30 23 february 2018

The court held that a valid and enforceable contract existed between the plaintiff and the defendants, and the purported mistake of fact was not mutual but unilateral, thus not voiding the contract. The defendants breached the contract by revoking the sale and demolishing the house. The plaintiff is entitled to damages and refund of the purchase price.

Citation
mweha hamis vs the permanent secretary the mininistry of infrastructure development 2018 tzhclandd 30 23 february 2018
Parties
Plaintiff: Mweha Hamis; 1st Defendant: The Permanent Secretary Ministry of Infrastructure Development; 2nd Defendant: The Chief Executive Officer Tanzania Building Agency; 3rd Defendant: The Attorney General
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
23 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Mistake of Fact, Sale of Government Property, Compensation for Demolition, Statutory Notice Requirement
Source Language
English
Contract Law Land Law Government Proceedings Breach of Contract Mistake of Fact Sale of Government Property Compensation for Demolition Statutory Notice Requirement

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mweha Hamis

Plaintiff

The Permanent Secretary Ministry of Infrastructure Development

1st Defendant

The Chief Executive Officer Tanzania Building Agency

2nd Defendant

The Attorney General

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land Case / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a contract for sale of the property in dispute between the plaintiff and the first and second defendants
  2. 2 Whether there was any breach of contract between the parties
  3. 3 To what reliefs are the parties entitled

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that a valid and enforceable contract existed between the plaintiff and the defendants, and the purported mistake of fact was not mutual but unilateral, thus not voiding the contract. The defendants breached the contract by revoking the sale and demolishing the house. The plaintiff is entitled to damages and refund of the purchase price.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff

Orders

  • Plaintiff awarded Tshs 50,000,000 as damages for breach of contract
  • Refund of purchase price Tshs 2,700,000 to the plaintiff