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 dismissed a land appeal, holding the tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the dispute had already been determined in matrimonial proceedings and execution.
The District Land and Housing Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain a dispute arising from a loan agreement secured by land, as the matter was contractual and not a land dispute. All proceedings and orders are void ab initio for want of jurisdiction.
Source excerpt
The District Land and Housing Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine the dispute as the parties' relationship and property dispute fell within the purview of matrimonial law, requiring assessment by a matrimonial court under the Law of Marriage Act.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal had jurisdiction as the dispute related to land arising from a sale agreement; the appellant was duly served through affixation and phone calls as evidenced in the record; there was no illegality or procedural irregularity apparent on the face of the record; thus, the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.
Source excerpt
The District Land and Housing Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute as the administration of the estate of the late Nikodemu Makomo was incomplete, and the appellant had no locus standi to claim the property. The matter should be determined by the probate court.
Source excerpt
The District Land and Housing Tribunal had jurisdiction because the pleaded facts and reliefs sought by the appellant related to land, specifically the sale and mortgage of the matrimonial property, which falls within the statutory definition of land disputes under the Land Act and Land Disputes Courts Act. The argument that the matter was purely commercial was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed as lacking merit.
Source excerpt
The trial tribunal erred in law by determining land ownership based on a will whose validity had not been established by a probate court, thereby usurping jurisdiction it did not possess. The tribunal also failed to properly consider the appellants' defence and prior litigation regarding the same land. As a result, the trial tribunal's decision was quashed and set aside.
Source excerpt
The District Land and Housing Tribunal had jurisdiction as the dispute was between a purchaser and tenants/heirs, not among beneficiaries; the administrator's delay did not invalidate the sale; the reliefs granted were within the scope of the pleadings and issues framed.
Source excerpt
The tribunal erred in nullifying the transfer of the suit property to the first appellant and declaring the transfer premature, as it lacked jurisdiction to determine the matrimonial status of the property before the competent court had decided the pending matrimonial cause. The tribunal should have left the issue for the Primary Court and not made declarations affecting the property transfer.
Source excerpt
The District Land and Housing Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain a dispute arising from the administration of a deceased's estate, and only the probate and administration court can determine such matters. Furthermore, only an administrator or executor, not a mere heir, has locus standi to sue regarding the deceased's estate.
Source excerpt
Explore more
