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
Plaintiff's evidence was consistent and credible, supported by witnesses with longstanding knowledge of the land and documentary evidence. Defendant's evidence was contradictory, lacked documentary proof of allocation, and failed to establish lawful acquisition. The land belonged to the plaintiff's deceased father, and defendant was merely a guardian, not owner.
Source excerpt
High Court land appeal dismissed after the appellant failed to prove title. The court upheld the respondent’s ownership through inheritance and sale evidence.
The High Court Land Division dismissed a land ownership claim, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove title and that the defendant was not a trespasser.
Land appeal dismissed after the court found the appellant failed to prove ownership of the disputed land and the sale agreement was too vague to identify it.
The High Court’s Land Division dismissed Ernest Munishi’s land claim, finding he had not proved the disputed land was his. It upheld the 1st and 6th defendants’ allocations.
The respondent failed to prove locus standi by not tendering a letter of appointment as administrator of the estate, rendering the suit incompetent. The District Land and Housing Tribunal erred in deciding in favour of a party without legal standing.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed a land appeal, holding that the appellant failed to prove ownership of the disputed land amid contradictions and no supporting documents.
The High Court held the respondent failed to prove ownership of the disputed land, but also declined to declare the appellant owner. The appeal was partly allowed.
The High Court dismissed a land appeal, holding that the appellant failed to prove ownership with documentary evidence of sale or public auction.
The High Court dismissed a land appeal, holding the appellants failed to prove lawful allocation of the disputed land and found no procedural error by the tribunal.
Explore more
