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 Registrar's notice of rectification failed to assign reasons for alleged fraud, depriving the appellant of the right to be heard and violating constitutional property rights. Rectification cannot proceed without procedural fairness.
Source excerpt
The High Court Land Division dismissed a Mareva injunction application, holding the applicants failed to plead and prove specific irreparable loss.
The rectification of the land register was procedurally flawed and unjustified as the Appellant was not properly notified or given a fair hearing, and the grounds for rectification did not meet the statutory requirements. The failure to compensate the previous owner was an administrative error by the authorities and should not result in dispossession of the Appellant.
Source excerpt
The High Court allowed a land appeal, quashing rectification of the register for lack of proper hearing, improper influence, and probate-related jurisdictional issues.
The High Court struck out a land appeal as premature, holding that a notice of intention to rectify the register is not itself an appealable decision.
The High Court allowed a land appeal, set aside rectification of the land register, and restored the appellant as owner after finding improper attestation of a declaration.
The Assistant Registrar of Titles lacked authority to issue the rectification notice under section 99(1)(a) and (b) of the Land Registration Act without an order of the High Court. The notice was therefore null and void ab initio. The appellant was afforded the right to be heard through the appeal process, and the notice was an appealable decision or order.
Source excerpt
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.
Source excerpt
The High Court allowed a land appeal, holding that rectification of the land register was invalid because the affected owner was not heard before the decision.
Explore more
