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
Plaintiff's evidence was consistent and credible, supported by witnesses with longstanding knowledge of the land and documentary evidence. Defendant's evidence was contradictory, lacked documentary proof of allocation, and failed to establish lawful acquisition. The land belonged to the plaintiff's deceased father, and defendant was merely a guardian, not owner.
Source excerpt
Appellant failed to prove the disputed land was located in Mlilayoyo Village and that his customary right of occupancy matched the land in question; evidence and locus in quo established the land was in Mageuzi Village and belonged to respondent; burden of proof not discharged by appellant.
Source excerpt
The High Court allowed a land appeal, held the respondents had not proved their claims, and confirmed the appellant’s customary right of occupancy.
The proceedings and judgment of the trial tribunal are vitiated due to non-joinder of Sukuro village, a necessary party, as both parties' claims depend on village land allocation; thus, a fair and conclusive determination is impossible without the village's participation.
Source excerpt
All conditions for res judicata are present; the subject matter and parties are substantially the same as previous suits, and the prior decisions were final and unchallenged. The addition of new defendants does not alter the res judicata status.
Source excerpt
The High Court held the sellers failed to prove legal title to the disputed land and ordered compensation from them, while declaring the land belongs to Okutu and Losokonoi villages.
The respondent failed to prove purchase and ownership of the disputed land as he did not produce a sale agreement, credible witnesses, or evidence that the seller had good title; the appellant's evidence was more convincing and supported by witnesses, thus the appeal is allowed and the DLHT decision is quashed.
Source excerpt
Plaintiff proved ownership of 556.27 acres by valid customary right of occupancy issued after proper procedures. Defendants' occupation was subsequent and based on allocations or purchases from villagers who could not pass valid title. Expert evidence confirmed Defendants' trespass into Plaintiff's land. Plaintiff entitled to relief against Defendants to the extent of their occupation within the suit land.
Source excerpt
The High Court struck out a civil suit over 15 acres of land after finding the plaintiff sued the wrong party, though it noted defective pleadings could be amended.
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
Explore more
