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 held that the Registered Trustee of Tanzania Assembly of God proved ownership of the suit land and buildings at Gichameda, and ordered vacant possession. Damages were denied.
The High Court set aside prior land decisions after finding neither side proved a valid allocation of the disputed village land under Tanzanian law.
The High Court dismissed a land appeal, finding the appellant failed to prove title and that the 2nd respondent had been allocated the land by village council.
Second land appeal over ownership of five acres at Mafizi. The High Court held neither party proved title sufficiently and ordered a fresh suit with necessary parties joined.
The appellant proved ownership of the disputed land on balance of probabilities; the tribunal erred in rejecting documentary evidence and in finding insufficient proof. The village lacked capacity to allocate land to the 2nd respondent, and the opinions of tribunal members were properly read before judgment.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed a land appeal, holding that the appellant failed to prove ownership on a balance of probabilities and that his exhibit was irrelevant to the disputed land.
The High Court dismissed a land appeal, holding that the appellant failed to prove lawful allocation of the suit land, while the respondent’s long possession and use since 1989 carried more weight.
The High Court granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, holding that the proposed grounds raised arguable issues and should be assessed by the appellate court.
The High Court upheld a land tribunal decision dismissing an appeal over disputed village land in Kiteto, finding no proof of lawful allocation to the appellants.
The High Court Land Division dismissed a challenge to a prior tribunal land decision, holding the plaintiffs should have sought revision and that the defendant proved lawful ownership.
Explore more
