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 application was dismissed because the applicant failed to attach the mandatory notice of intended execution, did not substantiate claims of ongoing execution, and the decree had already been executed without court involvement, leaving nothing to stay.
Source excerpt
The High Court struck out an application for leave to appeal in a land matter, holding that recent amendments removed the leave requirement and apply retrospectively.
The applicants established a prima facie case as there is a serious triable issue regarding ownership and occupation of the land. The applicants demonstrated risk of irreparable harm as they depend on the land for their livelihood and are in physical occupation, while respondents did not show they would be prejudiced by maintenance of status quo. The statutory notice requirement was met. Therefore, the order for maintenance of status quo is justified pending the expiry of the 90-day notice and filing of the main suit.
Source excerpt
The application was struck out as incompetent and premature because there was no pending execution, no notice of intended execution served, and the applicant failed to attach the decree or provide requisite security as required by the Rules.
Source excerpt
The High Court Land Division granted leave to appeal, finding the applicant raised arguable points of law about evidence admission and land ownership proof.
The High Court found that the respondent's evidence, corroborated by multiple witnesses and consistent with the history of land use, was more credible and reliable than the appellant's unsupported documentary evidence. The appellant failed to prove his claim to the required standard. The Tribunal did not err in its assessment of the evidence or in its decision.
Source excerpt
The appeal was dismissed because the appellants failed to account for a 3-day delay beyond the prescribed limitation period, as the time spent waiting for unnecessary documents (proceedings) could not be excluded. The High Court correctly exercised its discretion in refusing to grant an extension of time, as the appeal was filed out of time and no sufficient cause for the delay was shown.
Source excerpt
The applicant established a prima facie case as there is a pending substantive dispute over land ownership. The alleged damage to the land's structure and fertility constitutes irreparable harm not compensable by damages. The balance of convenience favors the applicant, as his loss would be greater if the injunction were refused. All conditions for granting a temporary injunction were cumulatively met.
Source excerpt
Prior probate and related proceedings did not determine the issue of land ownership, nor were they before a competent court for such matters; thus, res judicata does not bar the present land ownership dispute.
Source excerpt
The Commissioner for Lands is a necessary party in this suit because there are conflicting offers and a title deed for the same property in different names, and only the Commissioner can clarify the authenticity and lawful holder of the documents. The suit cannot proceed effectively without joining the Commissioner for Lands.
Source excerpt
Explore more
