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 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, upholding findings that the respondents were co-owners of the plot and that the appellant’s purchase lacked the co-owner’s consent.
The High Court allowed a land appeal over jointly owned land sold without all co-owners’ consent, and set aside the tribunal’s judgment and decree.
The Court of Appeal dismissed a review application, holding the complaint raised appeal-type issues rather than a manifest error, nullity, lack of jurisdiction, or illegality.
The appellant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, any agreement or evidence of co-ownership or entitlement to compensation; the trial tribunal properly evaluated the evidence and followed procedure.
Source excerpt
The respondent was entitled to claim her share of the land as a co-owner and was not required to be administrator of her late husband's estate. The tribunal's failure to visit the locus in quo was not fatal as there was no material contradiction on the size or boundaries of the land. The evidence of the respondent was found to be heavier than that of the appellants, and the tribunal's decision was upheld.
Source excerpt
The certificate of title is conclusive evidence of ownership and shareholding; since it shows the parties as tenants in common in equal shares, the trial court was correct in apportioning equal shares. Reliefs not pleaded, including rent, cannot be granted. The appellant failed to prove entitlement to rent or to show error in the trial court's reliance on the certificate of title.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that the execution sale of co-owned land was illegal to the extent of the appellants’ 6/7 shares and that the buyer had constructive notice.
The Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a joint venture agreement for acquisition of the suit property, with Plaintiff entitled to 49% and Defendant 51% ownership. The property must be registered as tenancy in common reflecting these shares, as Plaintiff contributed majority of funds and Defendant failed to include Plaintiff in registration. The law mandates occupancy in common for non-spouses without court leave.
Source excerpt
The appellant failed to prove ownership of the suit house; her husband was only administrator of the estate, not legal owner. The title deed remained in the name of the late Hassanali Kara, and no evidence of transfer of ownership was produced.
Source excerpt
Explore more
