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
High Court appeal over refund of land-sale money dismissed. The court held the claim was for repayment after rescission, not land ownership, and res sub judice did not apply.
The High Court’s Land Division held the defendant breached a sale agreement for a residential licence but ordered only a refund of TZS 50,000,000; the third party was exonerated.
On appeal in a land sale dispute, the High Court held the respondent failed to prove ownership, set aside the tribunal decision, and ordered refund and vacant possession.
The trial tribunal erred in ordering the appellant to refund the purchase price and pay compensation, as there was no evidence of joint liability or improvements by the respondent; such orders were not supported by the pleadings or evidence and are set aside.
Source excerpt
The appeal was filed two days out of time without an application for extension of time, contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Land Disputes Courts Act and the Law of Limitation Act. The court is bound to dismiss any matter filed out of time, regardless of the merits, unless extension is sought and granted.
Source excerpt
The administratrix of the deceased's estate cannot be held liable to refund the purchase price for a property sold without her knowledge, involvement, or benefit. Liability for reimbursement rests solely with the party who received the funds and conducted the sale without authority.
Source excerpt
The High Court Commercial Division recorded a consent judgment settling a dispute over refund of a house purchase advance, with installment repayment and a retained penalty.
Plaintiff's claim for ownership fails because the sale to his vendor was invalidated by prior default judgment and lack of proper capacity in the administrator; however, plaintiff is a bonafide purchaser for value without notice and entitled to refund of purchase price from estate representatives.
Source excerpt
The Second Respondent did not have legal authority to sell the suit land to the First Respondent at the time of sale, as he was not yet appointed administrator of the estate and failed to prove sole ownership; the Tribunal erred in disregarding the principle of nemo dat quod non habet, failed to properly evaluate evidence and pleadings, and should have given effect to the refund agreement (exhibit D3).
Source excerpt
The appellant failed to prove on the balance of probability that he refunded Tshs.3,000,000/= to the respondent, as his evidence was inconsistent, unsupported by documentary proof, and contradicted by other witnesses. The first appellate court correctly found that the full Tshs.6,000,000/= remained unpaid and ordered its refund.
Source excerpt
Explore more
