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 upheld a land tribunal decision recognizing the first respondent as lawful owner and held the later mortgage void because the mortgagor had already disposed of the property.
High Court of Tanzania held that Bank of Africa’s floating charge over OM Agro’s assets had priority over the defendant’s later claim to cashewnuts.
The plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence before purchasing the suit property, which was subject to a registered mortgage at the time of auction. The 1st defendant, as the registered owner, holds better title. The 2nd defendant lawfully exercised its power of sale after the 4th defendant defaulted on the loan. The plaintiff is not entitled to ownership but is entitled to damages from the 4th defendant and refund of the bid price if applicable.
Source excerpt
The mortgage over the matrimonial house was declared unlawful for lack of spousal consent as required by law. The bank failed its statutory duty to make proper inquiries regarding the marital status of the mortgagor. The property was acquired during marriage, used as a matrimonial home, and the plaintiff proved her marriage and residence. The mortgage cannot stand without the plaintiff's consent.
Source excerpt
The High Court allowed the second appeal, held the appellant was a bona fide purchaser of the motor vehicle, and set aside the lower court decisions.
The mortgagee fulfilled its legal duty by relying on the mortgagor's affidavit regarding marital status; explicit spousal consent and caveat registration are no longer mandatory post-amendment. The sale of the suit property was valid, and the first respondent lacked locus standi to challenge the transaction.
Source excerpt
The High Court allowed an appeal for extension of time where the appellant was not notified of the tribunal judgment date and learned of the decision only through execution.
The appeal was allowed because the respondent failed to adduce evidence or challenge the appellant's claim that the mortgage had been discharged prior to the sale. The trial tribunal erred by relying on documents not admitted as evidence and by dismissing the claim due to non-joinder of the seller. The appellant proved, on a balance of probabilities, that he acquired good title to the property.
Source excerpt
The plaintiff failed to prove that the Specimen Signature Card was forged or that the withdrawal mandate was 'Two to sign'; no evidence established fraud or conspiracy between the first and second defendants; the plaintiff, as a co-director and guarantor, is jointly and severally liable for the overdraft, but is entitled to a grace period for repayment and a refund from the first defendant for the amount withdrawn without his consent.
Source excerpt
The African Court dismissed Fidele Mulindahabi’s application against Rwanda because he did not prove exhaustion of local remedies, making the case inadmissible.
Explore more
