peter karanti others vs the attorney general others 1990 tzca 28 2 march 1990

peter karanti others vs the attorney general others 1990 tzca 28 2 march 1990

Appellants were lawfully in possession of the farm by authority of the Bank, despite not having legal title due to inoperative sale agreement; respondents' actions in dispossessing appellants were illegal and appellants are entitled to possession and damages for loss of anticipated income.

Citation
peter karanti others vs the attorney general others 1990 tzca 28 2 march 1990
Parties
Appellants: Peter Karanti & 40 Others; Respondent: The Attorney General; Respondent: Ainolip Kiniko Kitondo; Respondent: Jiji Cza Uroei; Respondent: Nahumu Rural Co-operative Society Limited
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
2 March 1990
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Mortgage, Possession, Damages, Trespass, Fraud, Misrepresentation, Government Consent, Injunction
Source Language
English
Property Law Civil Procedure Co Operative Societies Mortgage Possession Damages Trespass Fraud +3 more

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Karanti & 40 Others

Appellants

The Attorney General

Respondent

Ainolip Kiniko Kitondo

Respondent

Jiji Cza Uroei

Respondent

Nahumu Rural Co-operative Society Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants were entitled to ownership or possession of the farm
  2. 2 Whether actions of respondents in taking possession were illegal
  3. 3 Whether appellants were entitled to injunction and damages

Ratio Decidendi

Appellants were lawfully in possession of the farm by authority of the Bank, despite not having legal title due to inoperative sale agreement; respondents' actions in dispossessing appellants were illegal and appellants are entitled to possession and damages for loss of anticipated income.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Possession of the farm to be handed back to appellants
  • Appellants to recover shs. 2,262,000.00 in damages against all respondents jointly and severally