pricess nadia 1998 ltd vs remency shikusiry tarimo others 2021 tzca 249 9 june 2021

pricess nadia 1998 ltd vs remency shikusiry tarimo others 2021 tzca 249 9 june 2021

The appellant was not a legal tenant of the respondents due to lack of a registered lease and failure to recognize the new owner or pay rent. The omission to endorse exhibits did not affect the merits of the case. The appellant, as a trespasser, was not entitled to notice before eviction or to compensation for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
pricess nadia 1998 ltd vs remency shikusiry tarimo others 2021 tzca 249 9 june 2021
Parties
Appellant: Princess Nadia (1998) Ltd; Respondent: Remency Shikusiry Tarimo; Respondent: Director, Eukenforde Education Institute; Respondent: Manager Yono Auction Mart
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
9 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Tenancy, Eviction, Damages, Burden of Proof, Registration of Documents
Source Language
english
Land Law Civil Procedure Tenancy Eviction Damages Burden of Proof Registration of Documents

Source-derived case record

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

Princess Nadia (1998) Ltd

Appellant

Remency Shikusiry Tarimo

Respondent

Director, Eukenforde Education Institute

Respondent

Manager Yono Auction Mart

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was a legal tenant entitled to notice before eviction
  2. 2 Whether the appellant proved entitlement to damages for alleged loss and damage to property
  3. 3 Effect of non-endorsement of exhibits on the trial's validity

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was not a legal tenant of the respondents due to lack of a registered lease and failure to recognize the new owner or pay rent. The omission to endorse exhibits did not affect the merits of the case. The appellant, as a trespasser, was not entitled to notice before eviction or to compensation for alleged damages. The claim for special damages failed for lack of strict proof and admissible evidence.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.