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 set aside the first appellate court’s judgment, holding that territorial jurisdiction had been found on facts not pleaded or proved in the trial record.
The respondent proved ownership of the disputed land by adducing consistent, cogent, and corroborated evidence tracing title from his late mother, while the appellant failed to prove acquisition by gift inter vivos due to lack of supporting witnesses or documentation. The trial tribunal properly exercised its discretion in declining to visit the locus in quo, as there was no dispute over boundaries or physical features. The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed with costs.
Source excerpt
The respondent failed to prove ownership of the property and that the alleged properties were damaged by the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The trial and appellate courts misdirected themselves on the evidence, and the prosecution failed to establish the offence's elements.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the Tribunal's judgment, though unconventional in structure, complied with legal requirements; the appellants failed to plead and prove essential facts regarding their claim; and the doctrine of adverse possession was wrongly applied but this error does not affect the outcome as the appellants' case was not proved on the pleadings and evidence.
Source excerpt
No point of law or misapprehension of evidence was found; both lower courts properly analysed evidence and found contradictions in prosecution case; offence not proved beyond reasonable doubt; no basis for interference by second appellate court.
Source excerpt
The High Court allowed an appeal and ordered refund of Tshs. 3,000,000 paid for a failed house purchase, holding the respondents had received the money and must return it.
The appellant failed to prove ownership of the disputed land or how he acquired it, while the respondent's evidence of acquisition and continued use since 1982 was unchallenged and more credible. The trial tribunal was justified in declaring the respondent the lawful owner of the disputed land, but the order was varied to limit ownership to three acres, the actual subject of dispute.
Source excerpt
The appellant failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the disputed farm formed part of the deceased's estate. The documentary evidence was insufficient and inconclusive, and the will's validity was undermined by the deceased's incapacity at the time of its making. The concurrent findings of the lower courts were not shown to be perverse or based on misdirection.
Source excerpt
The appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof to establish ownership of the disputed properties. The evidence and documents presented by the respondent were heavier and consistent, and the tribunal properly evaluated the evidence. There were no material contradictions or procedural errors warranting appellate intervention. The tribunal's decision declaring the respondent as lawful owner is upheld.
Source excerpt
The High Court granted certification of a point of law for a proposed appeal, focusing on the legal effect of a 2007 order and a later land sale.
Explore more
