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
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 appeal was dismissed because the trial tribunal properly evaluated the evidence, the Village Land Act was not contravened as the land was not village land at the time of sale, and procedural omissions did not prejudice the appellants. The respondents' evidence of ownership was stronger and the appellants failed to prove their acquisition of the suit land.
Source excerpt
The appeal was allowed because the evidence presented by the 1st respondent was hearsay and inadmissible, as his agent could not testify on his behalf. The trial tribunal's decision was reversed since the appellant's claim stood uncontested by direct evidence, and the sale of land by the 2nd respondent to the appellant was upheld as lawful.
Source excerpt
The suit was not barred by res judicata as parties and issues differed; the respondent lawfully acquired the disputed land by sale (exchange of cattle for land); appellants' evidence was insufficient and respondent's evidence was heavier, justifying dismissal of the appeal.
Source excerpt
The court held that Application No. 62 of 2023 was res judicata to Application No. 249 of 2019 and Land Appeal No. 66 of 2021 because the subject matter, parties (including privies), and issues had been conclusively determined by a competent court, and the doctrine of res judicata precluded re-litigation. The previous appeal had determined ownership on the merits, and the addition or removal of parties did not alter the application of res judicata.
Source excerpt
The High Court Land Division struck out a suit over a house sale agreement, holding the dispute was about contract formation, not a land dispute.
The respondent's evidence regarding ownership of the disputed land was more credible and consistent, supported by corroborative witness testimony, while the appellant failed to provide consistent documentary and oral evidence or involve village authorities in the sale agreement. The burden of proof was not discharged by the appellant, and the respondent proved ownership on the balance of probabilities.
Source excerpt
The plaintiff lawfully purchased 24 acres (20 acres from the 1st defendant and 4 acres from the 2nd defendant) as evidenced by sale agreements and corroborated by oral and documentary evidence. The remaining 9.10 acres of the larger farm remain with the 2nd defendant. The dispute arose due to compensation issues and boundary confusion following government acquisition for road construction. The plaintiff's evidence was more credible and consistent, and the defendants admitted to the sales. The court disregarded prior tribunal decisions as they were quashed for procedural reasons.
Source excerpt
The applicant satisfied all criteria for grant of temporary injunction: there is a serious question to be tried regarding breach of the refund agreement, irreparable loss would occur if the respondents dispose the property before the suit is determined, and the balance of convenience favours the applicant. The respondents admitted the debt and default, and the agreement provides for injunctive relief. The court exercised its discretion to preserve the applicant's rights pending final determination of the main suit.
Source excerpt
The appellant failed to prove ownership of the disputed land on the balance of probabilities, particularly by failing to establish boundaries and provide credible evidence of title. The DLHT's decision was supported by evidence from the village council and proper evaluation of the law. Procedural errors, such as omission of a party's name, did not prejudice the outcome.
Source excerpt
Explore more
