20171013 TZHC Mbeya2

20171013 TZHC Mbeya2

The District Land and Housing Tribunal did not err in refusing to declare the Primary Court's decision illegal for lack of jurisdiction, as the proper appellate route was to the District Court. The Tribunal also did not err in its findings regarding proof, as the appellant had admitted the debts and consented to the sale of her house. The appeal was without merit and dismissed.

Citation
20171013 TZHC Mbeya2
Parties
Appellant: Zena Charles; Respondent: Daniel Mapamba; Respondent: Mbaruku Sendero; Respondent: Joyce Mwamjenga; Respondent: Sarah Kijabe; Respondent: Julius Mwakaje; Respondent: Mponjoli Alphonse; Respondent: JARGO Enterprise Ltd
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
13 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Land Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From District Land and Housing Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Courts, Execution of Judgments, Appeals Process
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of Courts Execution of Judgments Appeals Process

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zena Charles

Appellant

Daniel Mapamba

Respondent

Mbaruku Sendero

Respondent

Joyce Mwamjenga

Respondent

Sarah Kijabe

Respondent

Julius Mwakaje

Respondent

Mponjoli Alphonse

Respondent

JARGO Enterprise Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Land Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From District Land and Housing Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the District Land and Housing Tribunal erred by not declaring the Primary Court's decision illegal for lack of jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal erred in deciding in favour of respondents without proof of their claims

Ratio Decidendi

The District Land and Housing Tribunal did not err in refusing to declare the Primary Court's decision illegal for lack of jurisdiction, as the proper appellate route was to the District Court. The Tribunal also did not err in its findings regarding proof, as the appellant had admitted the debts and consented to the sale of her house. The appeal was without merit and dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs