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
High Court case over 350 acres in Bariadi: the plaintiff proved long occupation and lawful acquisition, succeeded on ownership and eviction, but most special damages failed.
The Plaintiff's title deed for Plot No. 131, Block F, Nyakato Service Industry, Mwanza, is valid and conclusive evidence of ownership, having been lawfully issued after the subdivision of Plot No. 105. The 1st Defendant failed to prove fraud, illegality, or that Plot No. 131 originated from Plot No. 110. The Plaintiff is the lawful owner, and the land register must be rectified accordingly.
Source excerpt
Applicant failed to prove irreparable injury or greater hardship; criteria for temporary injunction not met; application dismissed for lack of merits.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove ownership of the disputed land and that the 1st defendant proved registered title to Farm No. 271.
The High Court Land Division dismissed the plaintiff’s claim over a disputed plot, held he was not the lawful owner, and ordered vacant possession, damages, and costs for the defendant.
The disputed plot was lawfully allocated to Gerald Vedastus, who had good title to pass to Jackson Lyimo. Evarist Madukulu did not have a compensable interest in the disputed plot as there were no improvements at the time of survey, and he was already allocated three out of four plots. The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.
Source excerpt
The disputed plot was lawfully allocated to Gerald Vedastus, who had good title to transfer to Jackson Lyimo. Evarist Madukulu was not entitled to compensation as he had not improved the land and there was nothing worth compensating at the time of the survey. The appellant's father received three out of four plots, which was deemed adequate.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed a second land appeal, upholding the respondent’s ownership, finding no jurisdictional or procedural error, and maintaining demolition orders.
Second land appeal dismissed. The High Court upheld findings that the respondent owned plots 847 and 849 at Boko and that compensation and demolition orders stood.
The High Court allowed a land dispute appeal, finding the District Court misdirected itself and restoring the Primary Court decision in the appellant’s favor.
Explore more
