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
Application granted as respondents did not contest and court has jurisdiction to issue interim orders to preserve status quo pending expiry of statutory notice.
Source excerpt
The applicant's complaints regarding demolition and the creation of an alternative road have already been determined and dismissed in previous appeals. The supplementary order did not alter the original decree but clarified execution in light of obstacles. The court is functus officio and cannot revisit the same issues. The supplementary order is proper and justified.
Source excerpt
The High Court allowed revision, quashed DLHT execution proceedings, and held the execution and related ruling a nullity for failing to properly identify boundaries.
The court held that the plaintiff was the lawful owner of Plot No. 495 Block G, Tegeta Area, and that the defendant trespassed by building on the land.
The High Court struck out a land case after finding the plaintiffs’ interests had diverged, so they could not continue jointly or amend pleadings only for some plaintiffs.
The High Court allowed a land appeal, holding the DLHT wrongly ordered demolition and pipe removal based on orders the Ward Tribunal had not made.
The application for revision lacks merit because the evidence shows the wall base was still intact at the time of the tribunal's order, and the applicant's new grounds were not raised at the District Land and Housing Tribunal, thus cannot be considered at this stage.
Source excerpt
The High Court declared Mirea Company Limited the lawful owner of 12 acres at Sanzale, Bagamoyo, found the defendants to be trespassers, and ordered eviction and demolition.
The appellant is the lawful owner of the suit land as evidenced by the Residential Permit and prior Tribunal decision; there is no open space on the suit land, and the respondent's and neighbours' use of the pathway without the appellant's consent does not extinguish his ownership rights. The Tribunal erred in law and fact by failing to properly evaluate the evidence and by introducing issues not framed for determination.
Source excerpt
The appellant committed technical trespass by constructing a building with balconies and a razor wire fence overhanging the respondent's plot, in violation of urban planning regulations, even without physical encroachment. The claim of interference with easement failed for lack of proof of a legally created easement. Special damages were not strictly proved and thus not awardable, but general damages for trespass were justified.
Source excerpt
Explore more
