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 1st defendant did not follow the mandatory procedures for land acquisition, including issuing proper notice and conducting a valid valuation. The acquisition and valuation exercise were tainted by irregularities, rendering the process null and void. Without proper procedure, compensation cannot be deemed lawful or fair.
Source excerpt
The High Court allowed Tanzania Railways Corporation to deposit compensation in court and acquire disputed land for the Standard Gauge Railway project pending determination of ownership.
The High Court dismissed a land ownership claim after finding the disputed land had been voluntarily released for school use and the later sale was invalid.
The High Court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove lawful ownership of land in a road reserve, so the demolition was lawful and no compensation was awarded.
The plaintiff's land was not acquired as the process was aborted; thus, no compensation for land or crops is due. The confiscation of logs by the first defendant was unlawful as the plaintiff had complied with legal requirements and paid the imposed fine. The plaintiff is entitled to compensation for the value of the confiscated logs and general damages for inconvenience and loss suffered due to the defendants' conduct.
Source excerpt
The court found that the defendant's valuation process violated statutory requirements regarding sensitization and notification, and that compensation must be based on all items recorded in Form No. 3 as there was no valid cutoff date. Plaintiffs are entitled to compensation for all recorded improvements, statutory allowances for occupied houses, disturbance allowance, and general damages, but not for loss of profit or resettlement, as these were not proven or pleaded.
Source excerpt
Plaintiff proved ownership of 472 square meters via residential license; only 215 square meters were acquired and compensated, including improvements. Remaining 220 square meters were not acquired and plaintiff is entitled to compensation if government acquires it. Plaintiff not entitled to further compensation for demolished buildings as he was fully compensated.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that the plaintiffs proved customary ownership, unlawful acquisition, and entitlement to compensation for land taken for school construction.
The EACJ held Burundi breached the Treaty by cancelling Francis Ngaruko’s land title without adequate legal basis or due process, and ordered restoration or compensation.
Plaintiffs failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that they were not compensated for exhaustive improvements or that they had lawful ownership entitling them to compensation; procedural defects regarding locus standi and representation rendered some claims incompetent.
Source excerpt
Explore more
