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 procedural irregularities alleged did not occasion miscarriage of justice, and the evidence established the respondent as the lawful owner of the disputed property.
Source excerpt
Failure to join the Registrar of Titles as a necessary party in proceedings seeking nullification of land transfer and declaration of ownership constitutes a fatal procedural error, rendering the trial tribunal's proceedings, judgment, and orders null and void.
Source excerpt
The Assistant Registrar of Titles acted unlawfully by issuing a notice to remove the caveat and register the right of occupancy in favour of the 2nd and 3rd respondents without affording the appellants the right to be heard and without investigating the alleged fraudulent transfer, in violation of statutory requirements and principles of natural justice. The proper procedure was to appeal under section 102 of the Land Registration Act, not to institute a suit under the Registration of Documents Act, as the caveat had not yet been removed but was threatened by the notice.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal upheld a High Court finding that a transfer of a house into joint names was fraudulently procured, and dismissed the appeal with costs.
The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal over ownership and transfer of excavators, holding the respondent proved its case and that new issues could not be raised on appeal.
The High Court of Tanzania held that the land transfer to the plaintiff was unlawful, upheld the defendant’s ownership, and allowed the counterclaim in part.
The High Court held that the appellant proved lawful allocation and payment for the disputed plots, and set aside the tribunal’s judgment for failing to assess her evidence.
The High Court struck out an appeal seeking registration of land by transmission, holding the registered owner was not a party to the proceedings.
The plaintiff is the lawful owner of the suit premises as the alleged sale to the 1st and 2nd defendants was not proved by a written agreement as required by law, rendering all subsequent transfers null and void. The 3rd defendant is not an innocent purchaser as due diligence would have revealed the dispute and caveat. No fraud was proved in the transfer process, but the transfers were illegal for lack of valid title.
Source excerpt
Appellant was duly notified and failed to respond; rectification was lawful as transfer was void due to lack of good title; Registrar acted within statutory powers; appellant not entitled to indemnity as no development was proven and transaction was void.
Source excerpt
Explore more
