olaph bartazar mwageni v issa kizito two others 2023 tzhc 18677 30 june 2023

olaph bartazar mwageni v issa kizito two others 2023 tzhc 18677 30 june 2023

The DLHT erred by failing to visit the locus in quo and not taking additional evidence from the Village Land Council, which was necessary to determine the true boundaries and ownership of the disputed land. This omission resulted in a miscarriage of justice, warranting the setting aside of the DLHT's judgment and remitting the case for further evidence and inspection.

Citation
olaph bartazar mwageni v issa kizito two others 2023 tzhc 18677 30 june 2023
Parties
Appellant: Olaph Bartazar Mwageni; 1st Respondent: Issa Kizito; 2nd Respondent: Henrick Luambano; 3rd Respondent: Joseph Mlilo
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
30 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Land Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From District Land and Housing Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment and decree of DLHT set aside; case remitted for additional evidence and visit to locus in quo; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Customary Right of Occupancy, Derivative Grant, Locus in Quo, Appellate Procedure
Source Language
English
Land Law Customary Right of Occupancy Derivative Grant Locus in Quo Appellate 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Olaph Bartazar Mwageni

Appellant

Issa Kizito

1st Respondent

Henrick Luambano

2nd Respondent

Joseph Mlilo

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Land Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From District Land and Housing Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the District Land and Housing Tribunal erred in holding the first respondent as lawful owner based on a contested document
  2. 2 Whether failure to visit the locus in quo occasioned a miscarriage of justice
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal misconstrued the boundaries and customary rights of occupancy

Ratio Decidendi

The DLHT erred by failing to visit the locus in quo and not taking additional evidence from the Village Land Council, which was necessary to determine the true boundaries and ownership of the disputed land. This omission resulted in a miscarriage of justice, warranting the setting aside of the DLHT's judgment and remitting the case for further evidence and inspection.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment and decree of DLHT set aside; case remitted for additional evidence and visit to locus in quo; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Judgment and decree of the District Land and Housing Tribunal set aside.
  • Case records remitted to the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Songea for taking additional evidence and visiting the locus in quo.