JULIANA ROBO KASUKA V ANTHONIA ANGELO 3

JULIANA ROBO KASUKA V ANTHONIA ANGELO 3

The appellant/respondent failed to prove ownership of the disputed land on the balance of probabilities, failed to establish forgery of sale agreements, and the sellers were not necessary parties. The trial tribunal's allocation of 8 acres to the respondent/appellant and 2 acres to the appellant/respondent was supported by the evidence.

Citation
JULIANA ROBO KASUKA V ANTHONIA ANGELO 3
Parties
Appellant/respondent: Juliana Robo Kasuka; Respondent/appellant: Anthonia Angelo
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
17 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Land Appeal / Judgment on Consolidated Appeals
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Ownership of Land, Locus Standi, Joinder of Necessary Parties, Burden of Proof, Adverse Possession
Source Language
English
Land Law Ownership of Land Locus Standi Joinder of Necessary Parties Burden of Proof Adverse Possession

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Juliana Robo Kasuka

Appellant/respondent

Anthonia Angelo

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Land Appeal / Judgment on Consolidated Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial tribunal erred in declaring ownership of the disputed land
  2. 2 Whether necessary parties were properly joined
  3. 3 Whether the respondent/appellant had locus standi

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant/respondent failed to prove ownership of the disputed land on the balance of probabilities, failed to establish forgery of sale agreements, and the sellers were not necessary parties. The trial tribunal's allocation of 8 acres to the respondent/appellant and 2 acres to the appellant/respondent was supported by the evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Both Land Appeal No. 68 and 70 of 2023 are dismissed with no order as to costs.
  • The decision of Maswa District Land and Housing Tribunal is left undisturbed.