The High Court granted a preservation order and maintenance of status quo over disputed land, holding the Registrar of Titles was not a necessary party.
The High Court at Babati granted an uncontested interim injunction preserving the applicant’s title to Plot No. 24 Block H pending determination of the main land suit.
The High Court granted a status quo order pending appeal in a land register rectification matter, finding the notice could adversely affect the appellant.
The notice issued by the Assistant Registrar of Titles was appealable under section 102(1) of the Land Registration Act, and the appeal was properly filed. The ninety days’ statutory notice to the Attorney General is not required for such appeals, and the Attorney General was wrongly joined as a party. Maintenance of status quo was warranted due to the risk of irreparable loss to the appellant.
The High Court struck out an application for maintenance of status quo, holding it was incompetent because the applicant intended to file the main suit in the District Land and Housing Tribunal.
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.
The applicant established a prima facie case regarding ownership of the disputed land, demonstrated potential for irreparable harm if dispossessed before expiry of statutory notice, and the balance of convenience favored maintaining the status quo. Therefore, the conditions for a temporary injunction were met.
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the application for maintenance of status quo after a notice of appeal has been lodged, as such jurisdiction is ousted except for specific applications provided by law.
The High Court found the respondent in contempt for issuing notices to tenants after a status quo order over land was made, and fined him Tshs. 300,000.
The High Court refused to vary its earlier order requiring the applicants to keep paying monthly instalments under a hire purchase agreement pending the main land suit.