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 dismissed an objection to sale in execution, holding that the applicant was a party to the consent decree and could not stop attachment of his property.
The High Court struck out an objection application as premature because no attachment order had yet been issued against the property.
The court registered the Deed of Settlement as a consent judgment, holding that upon payment of TZS 18,000,000/= by the appellant to the 3rd respondent, the house shall revert to the appellant and all claims between the parties are settled.
Source excerpt
The applicant, as a bona fide purchaser in execution, had a legal interest in the property and was entitled to be heard before the sale was set aside. The district court acted without jurisdiction in setting aside the sale without hearing the applicant, constituting a material irregularity and illegality warranting nullification of its decision.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal correctly declined to order attachment and sale of the motor vehicle for a balance of Tshs 400,000/=, as such a small amount does not warrant such action. The appeal was lodged without sufficient grounds and in bad faith.
Source excerpt
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant had no title to pass to the 3rd respondent after the tribunal's attachment order, the tribunal correctly identified the property subject to execution, and both the appellant and 3rd respondent failed to prove that the property sold was different from the attached property. The tribunal's orders were lawful and intended to ensure execution of the decree.
Source excerpt
The applicant proved, on the balance of probabilities, that the suit property is matrimonial property occupied by her, her husband, and their children, and thus not liable to attachment under section 48(1)(e) of the Civil Procedure Code. Wrong citation of the provision was not fatal, and granting the application does not interfere with the Court of Appeal's decision as the execution order challenged is distinct from the appellate decision.
Source excerpt
The applicant's leasehold interest and possession do not bar attachment and sale of the property in execution because the registered mortgage in favour of the 1st respondent, effected in 2018, takes precedence over the leasehold interest. The law requires the court to disallow objections by tenants in occupancy, and the mortgagee's interest is prioritized in execution proceedings.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that the respondent acted in a representative capacity in the land dispute, and dismissed the appeal with costs.
The applicants demonstrated sufficient interest in House No. 57, Green Street, Mikumi Urban Area, which is not owned by the judgment debtor. Therefore, the property is not liable to attachment and sale in execution of the decree, and must be released from attachment.
Source excerpt
Explore more
