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 held that the plaintiffs failed to prove lawful ownership of land in a road reserve, so the demolition was lawful and no compensation was awarded.
The High Court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove their land was outside the 30-metre railway reserve, so their demolition claims and compensation request failed.
The High Court Land Division held that the plaintiff’s compensation claim was filed out of time and dismissed the suit with costs after a preliminary objection.
The High Court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove ownership of the disputed land and that the 1st defendant proved registered title to Farm No. 271.
The plaintiff is the lawful owner of plot No. 696 block J, Njiro, Arusha, as his certificate of title was registered first and there was no lawful revocation of the predecessor's right of occupancy. The 1st defendant's certificate was issued without proper legal basis, and the 2nd to 5th defendants failed to prove compliance with statutory requirements for revocation. The plaintiff is entitled to compensation for demolished structures and protection from further interference.
Source excerpt
The High Court at Kigoma dismissed a land claim after finding the plaintiffs failed to prove customary ownership or challenge the land's allocation to the second defendant.
The application meets all three tests for a temporary injunction as established in Atilio vs Mbowe: there is a serious triable issue regarding ownership, risk of irreparable harm to applicants due to lack of valuation and residential use, and the balance of convenience favors applicants as their hardship outweighs the inconvenience to respondents. Therefore, the injunction is granted.
Source excerpt
The plaintiff failed to prove ownership of the suit property as required by law, lacking a valid Letter of Offer or Certificate of Title. The 1st defendant holds a valid Certificate of Title for Plot 211, and the suit property (Plot 219) was not shown to exist in official records. Payment of land rent and property taxes does not establish ownership. Consequently, the plaintiff is not entitled to compensation or damages, and the demolition was lawful.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that the plaintiff lacked a valid building permit and that the municipality was justified in demolishing the structures. The suit was dismissed.
The Court of Appeal upheld demolition of a guest house built in a planning area without a building permit and dismissed the appeal with costs.
Explore more
