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 land appeal, holding that the appellants failed to prove lawful authority to sell the disputed land or pass good title.
The High Court allowed a land appeal, holding that Zaria Seif Ally was the lawful owner of the disputed plots and that no valid transfer to the second respondent was proved.
The High Court dismissed a land appeal, holding the appellants failed to prove the respondent sold them the plot or authorized a sale, so they were trespassers.
High Court land appeal dismissed after finding the appellants’ objections on joinder, sale agreements, land description, and assessors unpersuasive.
The High Court allowed a land appeal, held the appellant’s registered title was conclusive, and found the respondent’s sale-chain title invalid.
The High Court dismissed a land appeal, holding that the appellant failed to prove estate ownership of the disputed land and that the respondents’ sale agreements were valid.
The High Court dismissed a land ownership claim after finding the disputed land had been voluntarily released for school use and the later sale was invalid.
The High Court nullified a land tribunal decision, holding the sale to a minor was void, the seller lacked authority over estate land, and the land description was inadequate.
Land dispute appeal dismissed: the appellant failed to prove better title, and the Court held the respondent’s long occupation extinguished the estate’s claim.
The appellant failed to prove ownership of the suit property as he did not establish that the 1st respondent was a duly appointed administrator at the time of sale, and his evidence on purchase price was contradictory and unsupported. The sale agreement was executed before the 1st respondent applied for letters of administration, rendering the transaction invalid. Failure to call the attesting advocate as a witness was detrimental. No conflict of interest was established in the respondents' legal representation.
Source excerpt
Explore more
