said hassan shehoza vs chairman ccm branch another 2021 tzhclandd 176 25 january 2021

said hassan shehoza vs chairman ccm branch another 2021 tzhclandd 176 25 january 2021

The trial tribunal's failure to visit the locus in quo in a boundary dispute involving conflicting evidence on encroachment and land size rendered its decision unjust; such a visit was indispensable to resolve the controversy. The omission, coupled with non-joinder of necessary parties, necessitated setting aside the tribunal's judgment and remitting the matter for additional evidence and a site visit.

Citation
said hassan shehoza vs chairman ccm branch another 2021 tzhclandd 176 25 january 2021
Parties
Appellant: Said Hassan Shehoza; 1st Respondent: The Chairperson CCM Branch; 2nd Respondent: The Registered Board of Trustees of Chama Cha Mapinduzi
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
25 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Land Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Encroachment, Boundaries, Locus in Quo, Joinder of Parties
Source Language
English
Land Law Encroachment Boundaries Locus in Quo Joinder of Parties

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Said Hassan Shehoza

Appellant

The Chairperson CCM Branch

1st Respondent

The Registered Board of Trustees of Chama Cha Mapinduzi

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Land Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial tribunal erred by failing to visit the locus in quo in a boundary dispute
  2. 2 Whether non-joinder of necessary parties rendered the proceedings defective
  3. 3 Whether the tribunal properly evaluated evidence regarding encroachment

Ratio Decidendi

The trial tribunal's failure to visit the locus in quo in a boundary dispute involving conflicting evidence on encroachment and land size rendered its decision unjust; such a visit was indispensable to resolve the controversy. The omission, coupled with non-joinder of necessary parties, necessitated setting aside the tribunal's judgment and remitting the matter for additional evidence and a site visit.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment and decree of the tribunal set aside
  • Trial tribunal directed to take additional evidence by visiting locus in quo and ascertain boundaries and encroachment