Tanzania Case Law

RULING ISSA NDUMA ON NECESSARY PARTY

Court

TANZLII

There is no need to join the Commissioner for Lands, Registrar of Titles, or Attorney General as necessary parties because the pleadings do not seek relief against them, nor do they raise issues regarding allocation or registration of the land. The dispute is solely between the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant over entitlement to the suit premises, and the court can adjudicate the matter effectively without the absent parties.

Source excerpt

• Joinder of parties
• Preliminary objection
• Registered land
• Declaratory relief
• Fraud
• Fiduciary duty

Read case analysis

MARCO KAGHEMBE SCANNED

Court

TANZLII

The High Court held that the counter claim was res judicata because it sought to relitigate ownership and occupation of land already decided in Civil Case No. 72 of 1994.

• Res judicata
• Counter claim
• Declaratory relief
• Compensation
• Land ownership
• Res-judicata

Read case analysis

ABRAHAM SYKES VS ARAF ALLY KLEIST

Court

TANZLII

The High Court struck out a tort suit for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, holding the claims belonged in a lower court under section 13 of the CPC.

• Jurisdiction
• Pecuniary jurisdiction
• Tort
• Declaratory relief
• Civil-procedure
• Pecuniary-jurisdiction

Read case analysis

MATONANGE TINDE

Court

TANZLII

The High Court held that the plaintiff was the lawful owner of the disputed land, found the defendants to be trespassers, and ordered eviction and costs.

• Ownership of land
• Trespass
• Declaratory relief
• Eviction
• Burden of proof
• Land-law

Read case analysis

joran lwehabura bashange another vs mikumi township authority two others 2024 tzhc 252 9 february 2024

Court

TZHC

The High Court dismissed a land dispute over business huts at Mikumi, holding the plaintiffs had only limited occupation rights and that the council lawfully claimed rent.

• Land allocation
• Tenancy
• Trespass
• Declaratory relief
• Injunction
• Burden of proof

Read case analysis

Scanned 15457 OF 2024

Court

TANZLII

The suit is res judicata because the subject matter, parties, and issues are the same as in the previous suit, which was finally determined by dismissal. The plaintiff's claim for a declaratory order is related to the compensation claim previously dismissed, making the present suit a constructive res judicata.

Source excerpt

• Res judicata
• Cause of action
• Declaratory relief
• Compensation for land acquisition

Read case analysis

Land Appeal No

Court

TANZLII

The Tribunal lacked pecuniary jurisdiction as the subject matter was not recovery of possession of immovable property but other proceedings, with a value exceeding the Tribunal's limit. The pleadings did not support the appellant's claim of lack of knowledge or consent to the mortgage, and the limitation clause in the mortgage deed conferred exclusive jurisdiction to the High Court Commercial Division. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction
• Pecuniary jurisdiction
• Limitation clauses
• Mortgage disputes
• Declaratory relief

Read case analysis

Land Case No

Court

TANZLII

The value of the subject matter as stated in the plaint is below the threshold required for the High Court's pecuniary jurisdiction under Section 37(1)(a) of the Land Disputes Courts Act; therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction
• Pecuniary jurisdiction
• Declaratory relief
• Sale agreement
• Land ownership

Read case analysis

Consolidated Land Case No

Court

TANZLII

The Plaintiff's claims are closely tied to execution of a decree and should be resolved within execution proceedings before the executing court. The High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a separate suit on these matters. The orders sought are not available in this context.

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction
• Execution of decree
• Injunctions
• Declaratory relief
• Fraud allegations

Read case analysis

rubuye agro business company limited and another vs nmb bank plc 2023 tzhc 23669 13 december 2023

Court

TZHC

The cause of action accrued only when the plaintiffs became definitively aware, through the Court of Appeal judgment on 13 July 2022, that the defendant had not made the payments to YARA Tanzania Limited. The suit was filed within five months of that date, and the plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded grounds for exemption from limitation under Order VII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, the suit is not time barred.

Source excerpt

• Limitation of actions
• Breach of contract
• Fraud
• Fiduciary duty
• Declaratory relief

Read case analysis