LAND CASE NO

LAND CASE NO

Plaintiff proved ownership of 472 square meters via residential license; only 215 square meters were acquired and compensated, including improvements. Remaining 220 square meters were not acquired and plaintiff is entitled to compensation if government acquires it. Plaintiff not entitled to further compensation for demolished buildings as he was fully compensated.

Citation
LAND CASE NO
Parties
Plaintiff: Proches Simon Moshiro; 1st Defendant: Tanzania Railways Corporation; 2nd Defendant: Hon. The Attorney General
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
1 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Final Judgment
Outcome
suit partly succeeds
Legal Topics
Compulsory Acquisition, Compensation, Residential License, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Proches Simon Moshiro

Plaintiff

Tanzania Railways Corporation

1st Defendant

Hon. The Attorney General

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land Case / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the 1st defendant acquired only 215 square meters or more than 215 square meters
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was fully, fairly and promptly compensated for the land acquired by the first defendant
  3. 3 To what reliefs the parties are entitled

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff proved ownership of 472 square meters via residential license; only 215 square meters were acquired and compensated, including improvements. Remaining 220 square meters were not acquired and plaintiff is entitled to compensation if government acquires it. Plaintiff not entitled to further compensation for demolished buildings as he was fully compensated.

Court Disposition

suit partly succeeds

Orders

  • Plaintiff declared lawful owner of remaining 220 square meters; compensation due if acquired by defendants
  • Plaintiff not entitled to compensation for demolished buildings as already compensated