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 appellant's claim was legally unmaintainable as the sale agreement showed the land was purchased by minors, and there was no valid evidence the appellant signed or purchased on their behalf. The Tribunal was correct in its finding that the appellant lacked capacity to sue for the land in his own name.
Source excerpt
The Appellant failed to prove ownership of the disputed land to the required standard. The evidence established that the 1st Respondent inherited the land in question and had legal capacity to sell it. The tribunal complied with High Court orders, including visiting the locus in quo. The contracts of sale were valid as the 1st Respondent had authority to dispose of her inherited portion. The Appellant's claims were unsupported by credible evidence.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed a land appeal, holding that claims based on lack of consent and lack of capacity were time barred under limitation law.
The High Court dismissed a land appeal, holding the appellant was a minor when the disputed land was allegedly allocated and had not proved ownership.
The High Court reduced rental arrears, held the appellant lacked capacity to contract over the estate, and confirmed the appellant’s beneficiary status.
The High Court nullified a land tribunal decision, holding the sale to a minor was void, the seller lacked authority over estate land, and the land description was inadequate.
Ownership of registered land is determined by the certificate of title; the respondent failed to prove existence of a valid and enforceable sale agreement due to lack of statutory compliance and capacity of signatories. The trial Tribunal erred in declaring the respondent as owner contrary to established legal principles.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that a mining contract was void because not all co-owners of the primary mining licences signed it and two signatories had no interest in the licences.
The appeal was dismissed because the appellants failed to prove their allegations regarding improper admission of evidence, lack of capacity, improper party, and unproven damages. The trial tribunal's judgment was found to be properly reasoned, with evidence evaluated and points for determination addressed. The respondent was correctly sued in her personal capacity, and the award of general damages was justified based on the pleadings and evidence.
Source excerpt
The appellant failed to prove ownership of the suit land as required by law. The Certificate of Title was issued when the appellant was a minor and there was no evidence of a gift or guardianship arrangement. The respondent's use of the name Denis Juma was explained and supported by a Deed Poll. The Tribunal properly evaluated the evidence and the appeal lacks merit.
Source excerpt
Explore more
