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 dismissed a land appeal after finding the respondent bought the disputed land first, giving him superior title under the priority principle.
The appellant's certificate of occupancy was the first validly issued title and there was no evidence of fraud. The subsequent certificate to the 2nd respondent was invalid due to the priority principle in double allocation. The trial tribunal's decision was based on speculation without evidential support and is quashed.
Source excerpt
The appeal was dismissed because the trial tribunal had proper pecuniary jurisdiction based on the estimated value in the application, the evidence showed the land was the same and the respondent was the first purchaser, and the appellants' pleadings and testimony were inconsistent and contradictory.
Source excerpt
The High Court allowed a land appeal over a double sale dispute, holding the appellant was the first purchaser and rightful owner, and ordering eviction of the fourth respondent.
The High Court held that the defendants were the lawful owners of the disputed Pugu Mwakanga land, applying the priority principle and dismissing the plaintiff's case.
Plaintiff failed to prove ownership of the disputed plot by virtue of administratorship; evidence established the plot belonged to the late Fatuma Omari Nyamgunda and is now under the administration of Amina Omari Nyamgunda. The priority principle and tracing of title favored the defendant's claim.
Source excerpt
The evidence and findings at locus in quo established that the parties purchased different pieces of land from the same vendor, but the respondent encroached upon the appellant's land. The trial Tribunal erred by relying on the priority principle instead of resolving the issue of trespass based on documentary and oral evidence and boundary differences.
Source excerpt
The second defendant acquired title to the land first from the original owner, and the subsequent sale to the plaintiffs' predecessor was invalid as the seller had no title to pass. The plaintiffs' survey and certificate of title are nullities due to procedural defects and lack of neighbour involvement. The first defendant lawfully occupies the land, and the suit is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that a later sale of land was invalid because the seller lacked authority and the respondent had prior ownership.
The trial tribunal correctly applied the priority principle, finding that the first respondent acquired title to the suit land earlier than the appellant, and properly evaluated the evidence. The alleged procedural irregularities regarding transfer of the case were unfounded as the successor chairman recorded reasons and no evidence was taken by an unauthorized chairman.
Source excerpt
Explore more
