Download PDF

Tanzania Judgment

TZHC

19981022 TZHC Dar es Salaam2

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

No point of law exists for certification; the issue is purely factual regarding applicant's use of land as tenant at will.

Court disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • application dismissed with costs

02

Material facts

Parties

Silas L. Jinja

Applicant

Halfani S. Omari

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Year of Continuous Use Claimed: 1,964
  • Year Applicant Allowed as Tenant at Will: 1,990

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Application for Leave to Appeal / Ruling on Leave to Appeal

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Applicant claims continuous use of the suit land since 1964 and raises limitation of actions as a point of law.
Respondent
Respondent's counter affidavit and prior findings establish applicant's use as tenant at will since 1990, not raising any point of law.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Court's inherent jurisdiction

    Certification for leave to appeal requires a sufficiently strong point of law.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

No point of law exists for certification; the issue is purely factual regarding applicant's use of land as tenant at will.

Court disposition

application dismissed

  • application dismissed with costs

Source and reliance status

TZHC · 22 October 1998

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

TZHC

Judgment· 22 October 1998

19981022 TZHC Dar es Salaam2

I (DAR ES SA!AAH DISTRICT HFGL3TRY) J.\.T D!~f{ J.iiS SAllu\~1 • ...........,.,. ...... ~1---..-- . . '?..-.~-.-...--- . , I ,SlvLA.I L }I].';?{£.{i~LA. • o " o o •· o ~ o t e ') " o :, • o .:, " .s o ~ c. ci o o o o o • o c:, 1 • ,, o • oJ\}1PELJ.J\.l'JT nAl'L/.\.DF.ANI SFOMARI O • 0 0 O O O O ♦ ~ 0 O O O • < • G O o O O ~ o ~ O O U O o o O O .m~SJ?ONDJ~NT

RULING ------------- --------·-·--·-- \ 'l'he. applicant fe.,;,.turefl a,s th(o defendr.t:;1..t at his trial in a _suit that the respo- ndent insti tr:ted ot tlJ.,j Moroi~r~_ Urban J?rimr.ry Co1.,rt for recovc,ry of n piece .of land. 'l1he trir-11 court found for the lJl.'.lintiff. 'I'he defondr=,_r,t appelcd;. he succe- c'~.d in the app0al to the District Court. In n fu.rthe:r appeal to this C0urt the ." decision of the District Court wn.s ,set :::dde n:n.d tl1ot of t!.~~ tri21.l 1-1rimt.r:/ cour·t vns- restored. 1'h<~ e.p;,licm:t no\·: sG:d-cs le.?ve of this Court to file an appeal before the highest court of the land. The chamber summons does not indic~.te tz;,) nc~ture of th2 points cf law or points of mixed lc-.w and fact, this being a third D.p1x,D.l~ In his e.fi'idavit the applfo1:;rit simply_ says that r,oint1J of l.:,1--r Dre involved :i.11 -th; intcmcled appe2.l. It is in his Hritten ~.rgum6nts ti1D.t. the, applic,:mt brings ur, the issue of limitaticn of ,~_ctions4 Ee contr.mds that he hus be-':D in continous Us(:: of tbc suit Lmd since 1964. The.t contG:ntion .i,2,s dismissed by tlrn tr'icl court which f,_ound o.s f2ct th:::t ,""",. t~c ap})lic~u1t was allowed t::; uso t.b.e land c-:,s ;:i, ten,?-..Ylt et :.d.11 in 1990.. Th2t finding W,lS uph::,ld by this court. .';:h~t finding does not, in ::my case, involve a point of 12,.w; · it is pureby one of facto In my judgm,mt, o.nd after- h[tVing t0u<::cn due account of the rcspond.-.::nt's cou..r1ter .;,( ... .J.. l,-' nff1.'c1,..,y4.1. ,:·.l - there is no point of law thr.~t I may certify t'o be sufficiently strong to 'I'he applic::,tion is dismit;sed l•:i.th c01:-;ts. Delivered. , 22/10/1998 In person For A:pplic:mt l Ab.sent - : For Re:;spondi,nt . J..J, ! I J i

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Limitation of Actions Act

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.