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 Dongobesh Primary Court had no jurisdiction to try the claim for malicious prosecution as it was a common law tort, not a customary law tort. The District Court erred in assuming jurisdiction without proper inquiry. The appellant's failure to properly argue his ground of appeal meant there was no valid submission before the High Court.
Source excerpt
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to provide sufficient justification for the 30-year delay in seeking letters of administration, and the court found that entertaining such delayed probate proceedings would disrupt settled family arrangements and public order.
Source excerpt
Appellant failed to prove purchase of the suit land as required by law; oral agreement was not substantiated by timely witness evidence; adverse possession does not apply where claim is based on alleged purchase and occupation was not uninterrupted.
Source excerpt
The primary court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the tort of malicious prosecution as there are no established and accepted rules regarding such tort under the Haya tribe's customary law, and the matter is not within the scope of primary court jurisdiction under the Magistrates' Courts Act. All proceedings and judgments of the lower courts are nullities.
Source excerpt
The appellant was the first purchaser of the disputed land in 2004 under a valid written agreement, and the vendor could not pass good title to the respondent in 2018. Oral testimony by the vendor contradicting the written agreement is inadmissible. The concurrent findings of the lower tribunals were based on a misapprehension of evidence and misapplication of legal principles regarding written contracts and title to land.
Source excerpt
The appellant failed to prove that the disputed land is part of the estate of the late Regina Osijah Mgunda, as required by law. The trial tribunal was correct in dismissing the claim because the burden of proof was not discharged and the relief sought was not established by evidence.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed a land appeal over a farm and house, holding the tribunal properly evaluated the evidence and the appellant failed to prove estate ownership.
The trial and appellate courts had jurisdiction to entertain the matter as a civil suit under customary law, and the proceedings were not fatally defective for not being filed as matrimonial proceedings. The presumption of marriage is not a pure point of law but requires factual proof. The appeal is unmerited and dismissed.
Source excerpt
The High Court allowed a land appeal, finding the respondents failed to prove entitlement to 30 acres or that the appellant was merely a caretaker.
The High Court allowed a probate appeal, holding the Primary Court lacked jurisdiction because the deceased was Christian, so statutory succession law applied.
Explore more
