rose estomih lema vs alex machare another 2018 tzhc 2055 21 december 2018

rose estomih lema vs alex machare another 2018 tzhc 2055 21 december 2018

The late Estomih Lema had surrendered his shares and received compensation, ceasing to be a joint owner of the suit premises. The sale to the 2nd respondent was lawful, supported by company resolutions, documentary evidence, and compliance with statutory requirements. The Tribunal's prior decision concerned tenancy, not ownership, and was irrelevant to the present dispute.

Citation
rose estomih lema vs alex machare another 2018 tzhc 2055 21 december 2018
Parties
Appellant: Rose Estomih Lema; 1st Respondent: Alex Machare; 2nd Respondent: Zakaria Shidingu
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
21 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Land Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Ownership of Property, Transfer of Shares, Estate Administration, Sale of Property Without Consent
Source Language
English
Property Law Company Law Ownership of Property Transfer of Shares Estate Administration Sale of Property Without Consent

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

Parties

Rose Estomih Lema

Appellant

Alex Machare

1st Respondent

Zakaria Shidingu

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Land Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the late Estomih Lema was still a director and joint owner of the suit premises at the time of sale
  2. 2 Whether the sale of the suit premises to the 2nd respondent was lawful
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal erred in disregarding prior decisions and evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The late Estomih Lema had surrendered his shares and received compensation, ceasing to be a joint owner of the suit premises. The sale to the 2nd respondent was lawful, supported by company resolutions, documentary evidence, and compliance with statutory requirements. The Tribunal's prior decision concerned tenancy, not ownership, and was irrelevant to the present dispute.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The 2nd respondent is declared lawful owner of the suit premises.
  • Appellant's claims are dismissed.