Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Tanzania decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The High Court found an informal partnership between the parties, ordered equal sharing of qualifying partnership properties, and excluded property owned solely by each party.
Both Plaintiff and Defendant failed to prove individual acquisition of the suit properties. Evidence established the properties were acquired during partnership and with partnership funds. Certificates of title in Plaintiff's name alone are insufficient to rebut partnership ownership. The suit properties are partnership assets jointly owned by both parties.
Source excerpt
The evidence established that both parties contributed to the acquisition of the second car, making the appellant a co-owner. The appellate court erred in finding otherwise and awarding compensation not prayed for or proved. No new evidence was admitted at the appellate stage.
Source excerpt
The application for temporary injunction was dismissed because the relief sought would pre-empt the main suit, the applicant had already been removed from management, and the grounds for injunction were prematurely raised and not sufficient to warrant interlocutory relief.
Source excerpt
There was no evidence of a partnership agreement between the parties beyond joint ownership of the mining licence; thus, no partnership existed and no breach could occur. The High Court erred in awarding damages, dissolution, and other reliefs not supported by pleadings or evidence.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal upheld an award of a house to the respondent based on her money and labour contributions, but held that rights from an unregistered business could not be enforced.
A second appeal over a charcoal-business arrangement. The High Court held the parties were partners, not lender and borrower, and found only TZS 130,000 had been repaid.
The High Court of Tanzania found a rebuttable presumption of marriage and a joint brewing business, awarding the plaintiff 30% of listed properties and no costs.
The High Court allowed an appeal in part, finding an oral partnership proved by admissions and unchallenged evidence, and ordered return of property, refund, damages, and costs.
There was no evidence that any money was stolen from Tandahimba District Council or that the respondents conspired or occasioned loss; payments to the 1st respondent were made with the knowledge and consent of the partners, making the dispute a civil matter, not a criminal offence.
Source excerpt
Explore more
