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 applicant lacked standing to object to attachment based on encumbrances; only the secured creditor could object. The executing court acted within its mandate as the consent decree allowed for execution in case of default, and the applicant remained liable for the decretal amount. All grounds lacked merit.
Source excerpt
All grounds raised by the applicant lack merit; the executing court acted within its powers, complied with legal requirements for execution and auction, and no credible evidence was provided to support the applicant's claims. The application for revision is dismissed.
Source excerpt
Objection to attachment failed as appellant did not substantiate claim that the house was a matrimonial home with supporting affidavit from spouse or evidence of dependents; mere assertion and marriage certificate insufficient.
Source excerpt
Vehicles are registered in the name of the judgment debtor; sale agreements are not sufficient to prove ownership due to lack of stamp duty, suspicious circumstances, and incomplete transfer. Therefore, vehicles are liable for attachment and sale in execution of the decree.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that a house proved to be residential was not attachable in execution, upheld the objection, and raised the attachment.
The High Court held that an uncrystallised floating charge did not bar attachment and sale of company assets in execution of a decree, and dismissed the application with costs.
The appeal is not maintainable as a ruling under Order XXI, Rule 62 of the CPC is not appealable; the appellant must file a suit to establish his claim over the property. Attachment cannot be made against property of a company not party to the original suit.
Source excerpt
The applicant met the legal requirements for objection proceedings, established possessory and ownership interest in the disputed 1.5 acres, and the evidence supported his claim. The High Court has jurisdiction due to the involvement of the Government. The application is not time-barred in the circumstances, and the applicant's land should be released from execution or compensated.
Source excerpt
Applicants established urgency and public interest, justifying an interim order to stay execution pending inter partes hearing. The Attorney General's right of audience and the court's power to grant interlocutory orders were affirmed. The application was meritorious and granted.
Source excerpt
The allocation of 360 hectares to the first respondent was unlawful as it exceeded the statutory threshold and lacked proper approval. The applicants have established interest and possession in the disputed land. The attachment was invalid and the land remains under the administration of the second applicant.
Source excerpt
Explore more
