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 plaintiffs proved historical ownership of 18 acres at Somanda, and declared the purported occupancy grant to the police unlawful.
The High Court held that the plaintiff lawfully owned the land, and TANROADS’ demolition was unlawful because statutory acquisition and compensation procedures were not followed.
There was no formal order or declaration by the 1st respondent alienating the applicants’ land; the 1st respondent merely informed villagers about the government’s plan to reaffirm KIA boundaries, which is within his statutory powers. The applicants failed to provide admissible evidence of a quashable order or declaration. Therefore, the conditions for granting certiorari and prohibition were not met.
Source excerpt
The 1st defendant did not follow the mandatory procedures for land acquisition, including issuing proper notice and conducting a valid valuation. The acquisition and valuation exercise were tainted by irregularities, rendering the process null and void. Without proper procedure, compensation cannot be deemed lawful or fair.
Source excerpt
Application dismissed as applicants failed to establish irreparable loss and balance of convenience; loss is compensable under law, and respondents would suffer greater harm if injunction granted.
Source excerpt
The petitioners failed to exhaust available statutory remedies, specifically judicial review, before filing the constitutional petition, rendering the petition incompetent under sections 4(5) and 8(2) of the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act. The requirement to exhaust remedies is mandatory and not discretionary in this context.
Source excerpt
The High Court restrained respondents from invading and planning on the applicant’s land until compensation, alternative land, or expiry of statutory notice.
The High Court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove their land was outside the 30-metre railway reserve, so their demolition claims and compensation request failed.
The High Court granted leave to the applicants to file a representative land suit, finding they and others shared common interests and similar claims.
Plaintiff proved lawful ownership of the suit property via sale agreement and occupation since 1994. Defendants and 3rd party failed to prove their claims or compliance with statutory procedures for land acquisition. Acquisition by TAA and Ilala Municipal Council was unlawful for noncompliance with Land Acquisition Act requirements. Plaintiff is entitled to compensation and general damages.
Source excerpt
Explore more
