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 CRDB Bank had a subsisting security interest in Mining Licence No. 483/2013 and released it from attachment in execution.
The court found the registration number error to be a mere typographical mistake, curable under Section 97 of the Civil Procedure Code. The applicant proved ownership of the vehicle at the date of attachment, and the application was filed promptly. The objection succeeded and the vehicle was released from attachment.
Source excerpt
The applicant failed to discharge the burden of proof to show that the property belonged to Paulo Zephania Iyenga. The evidence presented was insufficient, questionable, and did not establish the applicant's interest or ownership. The property was found to belong to Mugituti Matiko, owner of the 1st respondent.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed an objection to execution over a demolished wall, finding the applicant showed no sufficient basis to stop attachment or sale.
The applicant demonstrated a registered legal interest and possession over the attached motor vehicles at the time of attachment, satisfying the requirements of Order XXI Rule 58 of the Civil Procedure Code. The properties were not in the possession of the judgment debtor but in the applicant's name as title holder. No opposition was raised. The court ordered the release of the attached properties from execution.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that the attached house did not belong to the judgment debtor and ordered it released from attachment. Costs were left to each party.
The High Court granted a bank’s objection to attachment, holding that its mortgage deed and prima facie evidence showed an interest in the property at attachment.
The application was dismissed because the property in question had already been sold prior to the filing of the application, rendering the application for investigation and postponement of sale moot and overtaken by events.
Source excerpt
The trial magistrate erred by failing to determine the preliminary objection before addressing the merits, lacked jurisdiction to vacate the eviction order after issuing it, and wrongly allowed the respondent to remain in the property despite the attachment and sale orders remaining intact. The proper remedy for the respondent is to file a separate suit to establish ownership.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed an appeal against dismissal of a stay/objection application, but revised the lower court proceedings for irregular service and denial of hearing.
Explore more
