gabriel mathias micahel another vs halima feruzi others 2023 tzca 17484 10 august 2023

gabriel mathias micahel another vs halima feruzi others 2023 tzca 17484 10 august 2023

The respondents proved ownership of the suit land on balance of probabilities. The second appellant had no good title to pass to the first appellant, and the sale was null and void. Allegations of fraud were not strictly proved, but the principle of nemo dat quod non habet applied. Procedural errors regarding mediation and party names were curable and did not affect substantive rights.

Citation
gabriel mathias micahel another vs halima feruzi others 2023 tzca 17484 10 august 2023
Parties
1st Appellant: Gabriel Mathias Michael; 2nd Appellant: Hamis Sheha Riko; 1st Respondent: Halima Feruzi; 2nd Respondent: Nurdin Ally Said (Administrator of the Estate of the late Bunaiya Abdallah Kisesa-Deceased); 3rd Respondent: Egbert Kalugendo
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
10 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Ownership of Land, Fraud Allegations, Title Deeds, Mediation Procedure, Curable Errors in Judgments
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Ownership of Land Fraud Allegations Title Deeds Mediation Procedure Curable Errors in Judgments

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gabriel Mathias Michael

1st Appellant

Hamis Sheha Riko

2nd Appellant

Halima Feruzi

1st Respondent

Nurdin Ally Said (Administrator of the Estate of the late Bunaiya Abdallah Kisesa-Deceased)

2nd Respondent

Egbert Kalugendo

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who is the lawful owner of the suit land?
  2. 2 Whether the sale of the suit land by the second appellant to the first appellant was valid?
  3. 3 Whether mediation was properly conducted after death of a party?

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents proved ownership of the suit land on balance of probabilities. The second appellant had no good title to pass to the first appellant, and the sale was null and void. Allegations of fraud were not strictly proved, but the principle of nemo dat quod non habet applied. Procedural errors regarding mediation and party names were curable and did not affect substantive rights.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Sale of suit land by second appellant to first appellant declared null and void
  • Suit land declared lawful property of respondents