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 of Tanzania granted an application to take additional evidence on appeal, directing the trial court to record evidence on wagons’ ownership.
The appellant did not apply to tender the map as additional evidence at the District Tribunal, and the records do not show any such attempt. The grounds raised in this appeal were not raised or adjudicated in the lower Tribunals, and new grounds cannot be entertained on second appeal.
Source excerpt
The applicant failed to demonstrate that the additional evidence (survey map) could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence at trial, and a similar map was already admitted as evidence. The application is an attempt to fill gaps after losing at trial, which is not permissible. The conditions for admitting additional evidence on appeal were not met.
Source excerpt
The appellant failed to provide admissible evidence of uninterrupted occupation for the statutory period, and submissions before the District Land and Housing Tribunal did not constitute additional evidence; thus, the doctrine of adverse possession was not established and the High Court's decision was upheld.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal dismissed a land appeal, holding that adverse possession was not proved and that tribunal submissions were not admissible additional evidence.
The High Court quashed land tribunal proceedings because the appellant was a non-existent entity and the respondent lacked locus standi. The appeal was allowed with costs.
Neither BAKWATA MUGANGO nor MAFURU KIRAKA were proper parties; the proceedings were instituted by a nonexistent entity against a person without locus standi. The appellate tribunal improperly called for additional evidence without application and failed to afford cross-examination rights.
Source excerpt
Neither BAKWATA MUGANGO nor MAFURU KIRAKA had legal capacity or locus standi to sue or be sued in the proceedings; the tribunals erred in entertaining the matter between improper parties and in calling for additional evidence without proper application or procedure.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that an application for additional evidence was premature because no appeal had yet been instituted; the motion was dismissed with costs.
The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s use of additional evidence on appeal and dismissed the complaint about lack of cross-examination because no prejudice was shown.
Explore more
