LAND CASE BHOKE SELEMAN
The High Court at Musoma recorded a consent judgment settling a land dispute over alleged road reserve plots, with compensation to be paid before demolition.
- Road reserve
- Demolition
- Compensation
- Injunction
- Ownership
- Land-law
Tanzania Source-linked decisions Coverage checked
Tanzania Case Law
Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
- Courts on this page
- 3 court collections
- Last checked
Search and filter Tanzania case law
Results update automatically as you type.
Tanzania decisions
Decisions matching the current search
johnson nicholaus mahagura vs tanzania roads agency tanroads 3 others 2023 tzhc 21108 21 september 2023
The High Court of Tanzania held that the plaintiff’s family owned the disputed land and awarded compensation plus interest and costs after finding the land had been wrongly acquired.
- Adverse possession
- Compensation for compulsory acquisition
- Ownership dispute
- Limitation of actions
- Water source protection
- Land-law
yahaya hamis mboneye vs tanzania roads agency 2 otherstanroad 2023 tzhc 20117 11 august 2023
The High Court at Kigoma partly allowed a land compensation claim, awarded TZS 3,900,000 and TZS 500,000 general damages, and found no trespass.
- Compensation for land acquisition
- Valuation of land
- Trespass
- General damages
- Land-compensation
- Land-valuation
edward daudi malila 8 others vs tanzania national road agency 2 others 2023 tzhc 19730 30 june 2023
The High Court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove lawful ownership of land in a road reserve, so the demolition was lawful and no compensation was awarded.
- Compulsory acquisition
- Road reserve
- Compensation for demolition
- Trespass
- Land-law
- Compulsory-acquisition
LAND CASE NO
The court found that the defendant's valuation process violated statutory requirements regarding sensitization and notification, and that compensation must be based on all items recorded in Form No. 3 as there was no valid cutoff date. Plaintiffs are entitled to compensation for all recorded improvements, statutory allowances for occupied houses, disturbance allowance, and general damages, but not for loss of profit or resettlement, as these were not proven or pleaded.
Source excerpt
- Compulsory acquisition
- Valuation procedures
- Compensation for land
- Statutory allowances
- General damages
james abiud nyakisagane vs tanzania electrick supply company tanesco 2022 tzhclandd 120 28 february 2022
The plaintiff, having consented to the compensation assessment and payment, is estopped from claiming additional compensation for land or the hut. Claims for higher land value, loss of income, and general damages were unproven. However, the plaintiff is entitled to interest for delayed payment as compensation was paid two months after the statutory six-month period.
Source excerpt
- Compulsory acquisition
- Compensation for land
- Interest for delayed payment
- General damages
- Loss of income
Land Cse No
The Plaintiffs' land (No. 019) and the Third Party's land (No. 018) are distinct; compensation was not paid to the Plaintiffs for their land; Plaintiffs are entitled to compensation of TZS 11,128,000.00 and nominal damages of TZS 10,000,000.00 with interest and costs.
Source excerpt
- Compulsory acquisition
- Compensation for land
- Nominal damages
- Interest on judgment debt
- Legal costs
CIVIL 80 OF 2022 A
Plaintiff is not entitled to the outstanding compensation as he is not the registered owner of the land; the Dar es Salaam Development Corporation holds the valid title. Defendants are not entitled to a refund of compensation already paid, as the plaintiff received it in bona fide belief of ownership and without deceit.
Source excerpt
- Compulsory acquisition
- Compensation entitlement
- Ownership of land
- Refund of compensation
- Counterclaim
aidia hamis juma 2 others vs the registered trustee of the national social security fund nssr 2 others 2021 tzhclandd 6907 29 october 2021
The plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence that the compensation rate of Tshs. 35,000/- per square meter was unfair or inadequate. The defendants demonstrated that the valuation process was conducted lawfully and fairly, and the majority of affected residents accepted the compensation. Therefore, the compensation rate is upheld as fair and adequate.
Source excerpt
- Compulsory acquisition
- Compensation assessment
- Burden of proof
- Valuation of land
dar es salaam water sewarage authority vs didas kameka others 2021 tzca 596 18 october 2021
The Court of Appeal upheld compensation awards for demolition of properties, holding the appellant failed to prove a 30-meter way leave and that the respondents were trespassers.
- Way leave
- Trespass
- Compensation for demolition
- Burden of proof
- Damages
- Building permits
Explore more