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 appeal was dismissed because the respondent proved the claim for rental arrears through credible oral and documentary evidence, including the appellant's written admission of debt, and the trial tribunal properly evaluated the evidence and admitted the documents in accordance with the law.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that a landlord-tenant relationship existed despite the absence of a valid written lease, and ordered eviction and rent arrears.
TAZARA is a Government authority; therefore, the applicable limitation period is sixty years, making the suit within time and not time barred.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal correctly found that the appellant remained in possession after the lease expired and was liable for rent arrears until eviction. The issue of ownership was not before the Tribunal on the counterclaim, and procedural complaints regarding assessors and right to be heard were unfounded as the appellant failed to attend the proceedings.
Source excerpt
The High Court Commercial Division dismissed a landlord-tenant rent claim after finding the defendant had proved the rent was settled through a set-off arrangement.
The court held that the relationship between the parties regarding the house is that of landlord and tenant, not employer and employee, because the applicant paid rent. Therefore, the dispute is a land matter outside the jurisdiction of the Labour Division of the High Court. The application was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Source excerpt
The High Court at Mwanza upheld a landlord’s claim for rent arrears and eviction costs, finding the tenant had not proved payments or any pleaded counterclaim.
The respondent was not an independent party but a duly authorized agent of the lessee, acting within the scope of her authority. The lease contract was valid and enforceable, and the evidence did not prove that the respondent breached its fundamental terms. The appellant, by interfering with the respondent's management of the farm and instituting legal proceedings, breached clause 22 of the contract. The appellant failed to prove entitlement to the reliefs sought, and the trial court's dismissal of the suit was correct.
Source excerpt
The High Court, Land Division held it lacked jurisdiction over a dispute arising from a landlord-tenant relationship and demolition-related compensation claims.
The Court of Appeal held the High Court lacked jurisdiction over a landlord-tenant eviction dispute, which belonged before the Rent Restriction Board, and quashed its ruling.
Explore more
