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 civil appeal, upholding concurrent findings that the appellants jointly forced payment of Tshs. 2,000,000 and must refund it.
The court found the second defendant had no title to sell the land to the plaintiff. The sale was void, but the plaintiff was awarded refund and damages.
The pending appeal in the Court of Appeal does not relate to the decree reversed by Hon. Wambura, J, and thus does not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the application for restitution. The affidavit is not defective and the preliminary objections lack merit.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal of Tanzania granted time to serve a notice of cross-appeal, accepting excusable human error in recording service dates and treating alleged illegality as good cause.
The Court of Appeal upheld restitution for demolition of a claimed house, rejected procedural objections, and varied interest to run from judgment until full payment.
The Facility Agreement was invalid and unenforceable due to late acceptance and breach of its terms. Although the mortgage was validly created and registered, its enforceability was contingent on the validity of the underlying loan agreement. Since the loan agreement was void, the mortgage could not be enforced. The Plaintiff is only entitled to restitution of the outstanding principal advanced, without interest or penalties. The counterclaim failed as the transfer of the property was not fraudulent, the property was not matrimonial at the time of mortgage, and the 1st Defendant had good titl…
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed a land revision application, finding no irregularity in execution orders by the District Land and Housing Tribunal.
The agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants is void because Najja Hardware, being a business name and not a legal entity, lacked capacity to contract. The 2nd defendant, as the proprietor, is liable only to refund the value of goods received under the void agreement, not for breach of contract or damages.
Source excerpt
There was no valid loan agreement between the Plaintiff and any of the Defendants because the 1st Defendant lacked authority to bind the 3rd Defendant and the 2nd Defendant was not a party. However, as the 3rd Defendant received the benefit of the loan, it is bound to restore the outstanding amount to the Plaintiff under section 65 of the Law of Contract Act. Claims for contractual interest and damages are denied as the contract is void.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that a mining contract was void because not all co-owners of the primary mining licences signed it and two signatories had no interest in the licences.
Explore more
