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 Court of Appeal dismissed a land appeal, upholding findings that the plaintiffs owned the disputed land, the allocation to the appellant was unlawful, and general damages were proper.
The respondent failed to discharge the burden of proof required to establish ownership of the disputed land, as there was no credible evidence of purchase, no documentary proof, and no witnesses to the alleged transaction. The trial tribunal erred in ruling in favour of the respondent without such proof.
Source excerpt
Appellant failed to prove ownership of the suit land on the balance of probabilities; substitution of parties was procedurally proper; prior tribunal decisions were reversed and not binding; appeal dismissed for want of merit.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed a land ownership claim over unsurveyed land at Vikeji, finding the plaintiff failed to prove that his alleged ancestor ever owned it.
The High Court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove lawful ownership of land in a mangrove reserve and dismissed their claims over demolition and compensation.
The appellant was the lawful owner of the disputed land under customary tenure. The respondent's acquisition and destruction of crops was unlawful as it did not comply with the Land Acquisition Act, including failure to compensate the appellant. The tribunal's judgment was fatally defective for not recording or considering assessors' opinions as required by law.
Source excerpt
The doctrine of res judicata applied because the dispute over the same piece of land had already been determined by the Mkwawa Ward Land Tribunal between the appellant and the Kiloloma family, including the respondent, who was deemed to claim under the same title. The District Land and Housing Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter again.
Source excerpt
The doctrine of res judicata applies because the dispute over the same piece of land between the same parties or those claiming under them was finally determined by the Mkwawa Ward Land Tribunal, and the respondent is deemed to claim under the Kiloloma family who were parties to the previous suit. The District Land and Housing Tribunal erred in entertaining the matter.
Source excerpt
Second land appeal dismissed. The High Court upheld the tribunal’s decision, holding that the respondent’s family occupied the land uninterrupted for years after reallocation.
The appellant's claim is time barred as the respondent has been in possession of the suit land since 1998, exceeding the 12-year limitation period for recovery of land under the Law of Limitation Act. The principle of adverse possession applies, extinguishing the appellant's rights. Procedural irregularities alleged do not affect the outcome as the suit is legally barred.
Source excerpt
Explore more
