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 transaction was a loan secured by 14 acres of land, not a sale, and dismissed the land appeal with costs.
One appeal was dismissed as time-barred, while the other was partly allowed because no breach of contract was found before the payment period expired.
The High Court held that mining activities in the former claim title area triggered a 1% royalty obligation, and awarded the plaintiff US$17,476,132.60 plus general damages.
The tribunal erred in finding that the rent payment contradicted the lease agreement, as only the 1992 revision was contrary to the five-year interval and any claim regarding it is time-barred. The lease agreement did not specify the type of rent, but the law requires the lessor to pay land rent and the lessee to pay ground rent. The act of numbering kiosks was not trespass as it was within the lessor's implied rights. The representative suit was properly instituted and not objected to at trial.
Source excerpt
The court found that Plot No. 2 Block 'A' was part of the properties sold to the defendant, based on the written list of properties (exhibit DEI) prepared and signed by both parties and witnesses, which was not specifically denied or challenged by the plaintiff. Oral testimony could not override the written documents, and the plaintiff failed to prove that Plot No. 2 was excluded from the sale. The suit was dismissed for want of merit.
Source excerpt
The application for stay was not belated as issues had not been settled, but the dispute in the main suit does not fall within the arbitration clause of the Inter Creditor Loan Agreement, which only regulates security sharing among lenders and does not cover the main dispute. Furthermore, not all parties to the suit are privy to the arbitration agreement, making a stay inappropriate.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that a pledge agreement over a shamba did not justify transferring possession to the lender for a debt of TZS 1,000.
Explore more
