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 plaintiffs proved historical ownership of 18 acres at Somanda, and declared the purported occupancy grant to the police unlawful.
The High Court held the appellant was the lawful owner of Plot No. 138 Block E, Mkolani, set aside the bonafide purchaser finding, and quashed refund and damages orders.
The High Court held that the DLHT lacked jurisdiction because the procedural Ward Tribunal mediation requirement applied retrospectively, and it quashed the DLHT decision.
The appellant proved lawful ownership of the disputed house through certificates of occupancy and property tax receipts. The respondent failed to prove donation or ownership. The tribunal erred in its evaluation of evidence and legal principles regarding ownership, limitation, and necessary parties. The appeal is allowed, and the appellant is declared lawful owner.
Source excerpt
The appellant is the lawful owner of the suit property as he was allocated the land in 2015 and issued a certificate of occupancy in 2019, which was not challenged or revoked. The property was not validly mortgaged to the 2nd respondent, as the mortgage deed lacked clear description and the 1st respondent had no title at the time. The 4th respondent did not acquire good title as a bonafide purchaser because the sale was invalid. Awards of refund and general damages against the 2nd respondent were unwarranted as the appellant's title was confirmed.
Source excerpt
The absence of necessary parties (land authorities) in the proceedings rendered the trial incompetent and its decision null and void.
Source excerpt
The absence of necessary parties (Commissioner for Lands, Registrar of Title, Ubungo Municipal Council) rendered the proceedings and decision of the Trial Tribunal null and void, as effective adjudication was impossible without them.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the land he bought was the same as plot No. 580 Block N. The 3rd defendant was declared lawful owner.
The appellant's certificate of occupancy was the first validly issued title and there was no evidence of fraud. The subsequent certificate to the 2nd respondent was invalid due to the priority principle in double allocation. The trial tribunal's decision was based on speculation without evidential support and is quashed.
Source excerpt
Appellant was the first to be granted the right of occupancy over the disputed land in 1982, evidenced by official documents. The trial tribunal failed to properly evaluate the evidence and legal principles, leading to an erroneous decision. The appellant proved ownership on balance of probability.
Source excerpt
Explore more
