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 allowed an appeal over sale of deceased estate land, holding the administrator lacked authority and the buyer could not rely on bona fide purchaser status.
The appellant had no locus standi to sue for property belonging to the deceased in her personal capacity, rendering the proceedings, judgment, and decree of the trial tribunal null and void.
Source excerpt
The High Court of Tanzania allowed an application under section 137 to cure quorum problems in a company after the death of a director-shareholder, enabling a members’ meeting.
Plaintiff lacks locus standi to claim ownership over jointly owned property with her deceased husband without being appointed administratrix of the deceased estate; suit struck out for want of locus.
Source excerpt
The High Court upheld the will and held that the family house remained jointly shared by the heirs, not subject to sale or partition without consent.
The application for revision before the District Court was time barred in respect of the first and second orders, as the computation of limitation must begin from the date of each order. The third order had no legal effect on the sale of the house, as the sale had already occurred pursuant to the second order. It was legally improper for the appellants to file an omnibus revisional application against all three orders cumulatively, especially while an appeal against the third order was pending. The District Court erred in holding the application was not time barred and should have dismissed i…
Source excerpt
The application for revision before the District Court was time barred in respect of the first and second orders as more than twelve months had elapsed from their dates; the third order did not affect the sale of the house but merely noticed and respected the second order; it was legally improper to file a single revision application against three orders made by different magistrates, especially while an appeal was pending against the third order; the District Court erred in holding the application was not time barred and should have dismissed it instantly.
Source excerpt
Appellant is the lawful owner of the disputed land and house as evidenced by registration and title deed; respondent's occupation and construction do not confer ownership without documentary proof; property transferred to appellant remains hers and cannot be dealt with without her consent.
Source excerpt
Explore more
