SULPIS MELKIORI MATEMU VS GULLAM HASSANALI FADHIL

SULPIS MELKIORI MATEMU VS GULLAM HASSANALI FADHIL

Plaintiff proved ownership of 556.27 acres by valid customary right of occupancy issued after proper procedures. Defendants' occupation was subsequent and based on allocations or purchases from villagers who could not pass valid title. Expert evidence confirmed Defendants' trespass into Plaintiff's land. Plaintiff entitled to relief against Defendants to the extent of their occupation within the suit land.

Citation
SULPIS MELKIORI MATEMU VS GULLAM HASSANALI FADHIL
Parties
Plaintiff: Sulpis Melkiori Matemu; 1st Defendant: Gullam Hassanali Fadhal; 2nd Defendant: Abraham Rehani Khalili; 3rd Defendant: Lucy Paulo Masalu; 4th Defendant: Omary Mohamed Al-Shatry @ Sharifu; 5th Defendant: Eugen Robert Matemu
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
7 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim partly allowed; Defendants found to have trespassed into Plaintiff's land.
Legal Topics
Customary Right of Occupancy, Land Allocation, Trespass, Adverse Possession, Misjoinder and Non Joinder of Parties, Damages
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Customary Right of Occupancy Land Allocation Trespass Adverse Possession Misjoinder and Non Joinder of Parties Damages

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sulpis Melkiori Matemu

Plaintiff

Gullam Hassanali Fadhal

1st Defendant

Abraham Rehani Khalili

2nd Defendant

Lucy Paulo Masalu

3rd Defendant

Omary Mohamed Al-Shatry @ Sharifu

4th Defendant

Eugen Robert Matemu

5th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land Case / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who is the lawful owner of the disputed land?
  2. 2 To what reliefs are the parties entitled?

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff proved ownership of 556.27 acres by valid customary right of occupancy issued after proper procedures. Defendants' occupation was subsequent and based on allocations or purchases from villagers who could not pass valid title. Expert evidence confirmed Defendants' trespass into Plaintiff's land. Plaintiff entitled to relief against Defendants to the extent of their occupation within the suit land.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim partly allowed; Defendants found to have trespassed into Plaintiff's land.

Orders

  • Defendants to vacate suit land forming part of Plaintiff's customary right of occupancy (Exhibit PE5).
  • Defendants permanently restrained from entering Plaintiff's land.