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 allowed a land appeal, held the respondents had not proved their claims, and confirmed the appellant’s customary right of occupancy.
The appeal was allowed on the basis that the trial tribunal committed fundamental procedural errors by failing to read out admitted documentary evidence and by not appending the chairman’s signature to witness testimonies, both of which vitiated the authenticity and legality of the proceedings, resulting in nullification of the trial and judgment.
Source excerpt
The High Court allowed a criminal appeal against arson convictions, quashing the convictions and setting aside the sentences after finding the evidence insufficient.
The High Court dismissed a land appeal, holding that the appellant failed to prove ownership of the disputed land and that the tribunal correctly assessed the evidence.
The High Court dismissed a land appeal, holding that the appellant had not produced sufficient evidence to prove ownership of the disputed land.
Appellant proved ownership of the motorcycle by registration card as required by law. Respondents wrongfully converted the motorcycle, entitling appellant to compensation for value, loss of income, general damages, and interest.
Source excerpt
The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused owned the house where the narcotic drugs were found and had control over it during the period he was in police custody. Without proof of ownership and control, the charge of trafficking cannot stand.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal correctly found the Respondent's evidence of ownership to be stronger and more credible than the Appellant's, whose evidence was contradictory and unsupported. The Tribunal properly evaluated the evidence and gave reasons for its decision. The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.
Source excerpt
The trial court erred by requiring proof of land ownership rather than crop ownership for the offence of unlawful damage to property. The appellate court also erred in its evaluation of evidence. The High Court, lacking power to re-evaluate evidence as a second appellate court, found it in the interest of justice to order a retrial.
Source excerpt
The applicant raised contentious points of law regarding admissibility and proof of ownership that are fit for consideration by the Court of Appeal. The application meets the legal threshold for granting leave to appeal.
Source excerpt
Explore more
