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 held that the suit was for compensation, not recovery of land, and was filed out of time under the one-year limitation period.
The Plaintiff failed to prove, by calling a qualified surveyor or producing complete boundary evidence, that the 1st Defendant encroached upon and demolished structures on Plot No. 321/22; thus, the claims of trespass and damages were not established.
Source excerpt
Applicants satisfied both conditions for stay of execution by demonstrating risk of substantial loss and providing a firm undertaking to furnish security; thus, stay is granted conditional on execution of a bond to maintain the status quo of the disputed property.
Source excerpt
Applicants established a prima facie case due to disputed ownership and status of the land, demonstrated risk of irreparable loss through potential loss of homes, and the balance of convenience favored applicants as they would suffer greater harm if the injunction was refused. All conditions for granting a mareva injunction were met.
Source excerpt
Applicants have established a prima facie case, demonstrated legal impediment due to statutory notice, and shown risk of irreparable loss. All conditions for Mareva injunction are met; thus, respondents are restrained from demolishing structures until expiry of statutory notice.
Source excerpt
The High Court Land Division struck out the suit for want of pecuniary jurisdiction, holding that only the house value counted, not chattels or personal belongings.
The applicant established a prima facie case, demonstrated risk of irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favored him; thus, the court granted the temporary injunction to restrain demolition pending the main suit.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that the plaintiff lacked a valid building permit and that the municipality was justified in demolishing the structures. The suit was dismissed.
The appeal was allowed because the tribunal's decision was vague, lacked proper description of the wall subject to demolition, and contradicted the prior judgment, making it impossible to determine if the correct wall was demolished.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that the plaintiff’s house lay within a statutory road reserve and dismissed his claim for compensation after demolition.
Explore more
