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 nullified lower tribunal decisions in a land dispute for insufficient evidence on the land’s size and boundaries, while rejecting a challenge over an assessor’s absence.
The High Court upheld dismissal of a land appeal, holding the appellant was estopped by signing a boundary verification form and failed to prove encroachment.
The trial tribunal erred by failing to visit the locus in quo despite acknowledged uncertainties regarding the boundaries, which caused injustice to both parties. Visiting the locus in quo was necessary to resolve ambiguities and ensure a fair determination.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal failed to follow the required procedure during the locus in quo visit, including not recording who testified, not allowing examination or clarification, and not reading out notes to the parties. This procedural irregularity rendered the proceedings defective, warranting the quashing and setting aside of the Tribunal's judgment and decree, and remitting the matter for proper procedure to be followed.
Source excerpt
The plaintiff lawfully purchased 24 acres (20 acres from the 1st defendant and 4 acres from the 2nd defendant) as evidenced by sale agreements and corroborated by oral and documentary evidence. The remaining 9.10 acres of the larger farm remain with the 2nd defendant. The dispute arose due to compensation issues and boundary confusion following government acquisition for road construction. The plaintiff's evidence was more credible and consistent, and the defendants admitted to the sales. The court disregarded prior tribunal decisions as they were quashed for procedural reasons.
Source excerpt
On appeal in a land dispute, the High Court held that a locus in quo visit was unnecessary and affirmed the tribunal’s dismissal of Paulina Paulo’s claim.
The appellant provided sufficient evidence of ownership and proper identification of the suit land. The sale agreement between the appellant and the second respondent was valid, as the law does not require neighbour involvement. The trial tribunal erred in dismissing the case and invalidating the sale agreement. The appellant's evidence outweighed that of the first respondent, establishing lawful ownership and trespass.
Source excerpt
The resurvey process was a nullity as the appellant, an interested party, was not involved, and the trial Tribunal erred in relying on its results. The application was not time barred as the cause of action was for recovery of land, not tort.
Source excerpt
The High Court upheld a land tribunal decision finding the respondent the lawful owner of the disputed land and dismissing objections on evidence, procedure, and boundaries.
The evidence on record was insufficient to determine the matter justly due to conflicting accounts of the boundaries and neighbors of the disputed land. The Tribunal should have conducted a locus in quo to clarify these issues. Failure to do so was a material error, warranting remittal for further evidence.
Source excerpt
Explore more
