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 Court of Appeal held that the appellant’s right of occupancy was unlawfully revoked because the statutory notice and revocation procedures were not followed.
The High Court upheld revocation of a right of occupancy for breach of conditions and land-rent nonpayment, dismissing the plaintiff’s challenge to reallocation.
The High Court dismissed Kinondoni Municipal Council’s land claim, holding the defendants had the better title to Plot No. 615 Block F, Msasani, and the demolition was lawful.
The respondents failed to prove that the appellant breached any conditions in the certificate of occupancy or that there was an operative sale; thus, there was no good cause for revocation, rendering the revocation and subsequent sub-division and reallocation of the land illegal and void.
Source excerpt
The first respondent's title is superior because the original offer to Subira Kasimbilo was never lawfully revoked; subsequent allocations and titles to others, including the appellant, are null and void. Revocation requires written notice, which was not proven. The trial judge's findings on ownership, developments, and damages are upheld.
Source excerpt
The High Court quashed the revocation of a right of occupancy, finding the applicant was not duly notified or heard and that statutory revocation procedures were not followed.
The appellant acquired the disputed plot through fraudulent means, being privy to and participating in the fraud. The revocation of his title and rectification of the land register were justified under section 99(2) of the Land Registration Act. The appellant is not entitled to indemnity, as he substantially contributed to the loss by his own fraud.
Source excerpt
The High Court upheld revocation of a right of occupancy for failure to develop the land and dismissed the plaintiff’s challenge to the later allocation.
The High Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove compliance with occupancy conditions. It upheld the revocation of the title and dismissed the suit.
The High Court held that removal of the plaintiff’s name from the land register and revocation of his title were unlawful for failure to follow statutory procedure.
Explore more
