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
Vianzi Village Council was a necessary party for fair and conclusive determination of the ownership dispute, as the allocation and alleged double allocation of the suit property was central to the case. The Tribunal erred by proceeding without the Village Council after striking out its name without proper scrutiny of the pleadings.
Source excerpt
The suit before the trial tribunal was incompetent for failure to join necessary parties, specifically land authorities responsible for survey and allocation, rendering the proceedings, judgment, and decree a nullity.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal dismissed an application to review its earlier land decision, holding the grounds were really an attempt to re-argue the appeal.
Failure to join the land allocating authorities as necessary parties rendered the tribunal unable to effectively and completely adjudicate the dispute, as their presence was essential to scrutinize the validity of the documents and resolve the issues raised. The appeal was allowed on this basis, and the tribunal's decision was quashed.
Source excerpt
The appellant was duly served with summons to appear for the ex parte judgment and failed to attend by his own design. The issue of double allocation was not pleaded or raised before the trial tribunal and cannot be considered on appeal. The grounds for extension of time and setting aside the ex parte judgment were not established.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held the land claim was within time, rejected adverse possession and bona fide purchaser findings, and restored the DLHT decision.
The appellants' title to the disputed land was invalid as it was granted when a prior title to Abisai Issawangu subsisted; the respondent's title, based on the priority principle, prevails; procedural objections to the respondent's status as guardian were waived by withdrawal and are not substantive; the existence of two certificates of title in the respondent's name does not create competing interests as both relate to the same offeree after verification.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that the plaintiff was the lawful owner of Plot No. 8 Block B Ununio, declared the defendant's title void, and granted a permanent injunction.
The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal in a land dispute, holding that the second-bite application was competent and raised prima facie arguable grounds.
The High Court Land Division dismissed an appeal over disputed land, holding there was no need to join the Ministry of Lands or Attorney General and that ownership was not proved.
Explore more
