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
Consent judgment in a land dispute adopted a deed of settlement, recorded the parties’ compromise, and marked the matter settled and withdrawn.
The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that the respondent owned the land, but set aside the Tshs. 40 million general damages award for lack of reasons.
The parties reached a consent settlement whereby the plaintiff and first defendant share rental payments already received, agreed to sell the property to the second defendant, and the second defendant pays TZS 200,000,000 to the plaintiff, with the second defendant recognized as lawful owner. The consent settlement is final and conclusive, with each party bearing its own costs.
Source excerpt
The appeal was dismissed because the evidence established that the disputed property was sold by the original owner to his son in 1968, supported by a written agreement and corroborated by the biological mother. The appellant failed to prove current ownership or invalidate the sale. Procedural omissions regarding the appointment of the administratrix did not prejudice the appellant. The tribunal's decision was based on the weight of evidence, and no grounds were found to disturb it.
Source excerpt
The High Court Land Division held that the 1st defendant, as registered owner, lawfully sold the suit property to the 2nd defendant and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims.
The High Court struck out a land suit as incompetent, holding it was functus officio because ownership of the disputed plots had already been finally determined in an earlier case.
Plaintiff failed to prove lack of consent or forgery; valid spousal consent was established. Sale and transfer of property followed legal procedures and were valid. Reliefs sought by plaintiff not granted.
Source excerpt
The appellant, by his oral and written representations, allowed the respondents to occupy and develop the suit property without limitation, and the respondents acted to their detriment by constructing a permanent building and occupying the property for many years. It would be inequitable for the appellant to withdraw his representation and assert title after such a long period. The doctrine of proprietary estoppel applies, making the respondents the lawful owners. The trial court's order compelling the appellant to sign transfer documents was set aside as unnecessary, since the judgment itsel…
Source excerpt
The High Court held that the defendant acquiesced to the plaintiffs’ construction and occupation of the plot, ordered transfer of title to them, and dismissed the counterclaim.
The tribunal erred in nullifying the transfer of the suit property to the first appellant and declaring the transfer premature, as it lacked jurisdiction to determine the matrimonial status of the property before the competent court had decided the pending matrimonial cause. The tribunal should have left the issue for the Primary Court and not made declarations affecting the property transfer.
Source excerpt
Explore more
