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 at Kigoma dismissed a land appeal, upholding the tribunal’s finding that the appellant failed to prove ownership of the disputed plot.
The appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving that the disputed land belonged to his father, as the evidence showed the land was originally owned by the respondents' father. The lack of an appointed administrator for the respondents' father's estate was irrelevant since the appellant initiated the suit and failed to prove his claim.
Source excerpt
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to prove her claim to the disputed land, failed to challenge the oral will in the proper forum, failed to establish contradictions in the respondent's evidence, and failed to prove the size of the disputed land as pleaded. The respondent's evidence of inheritance and long-term use was more credible and consistent, and the tribunal's findings were upheld.
Source excerpt
The trial tribunal committed a procedural irregularity by denying the appellant the right to be heard, as the necessary prerequisites under Regulation 13(2) were not met. This violation of natural justice nullifies the proceedings and judgment from 1st September 2023 onwards.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed a land appeal after finding the appellant changed his case from adverse possession to inheritance and failed to prove title on a balance of probabilities.
The High Court dismissed a land appeal between father and son, holding that the appellant failed to prove legal ownership of inherited land.
The High Court dismissed a land appeal over an 8-acre dispute, finding the appellant failed to prove inheritance-based ownership and that the respondents’ possession evidence prevailed.
The 1st respondent failed to prove locus standi as he did not tender evidence of legal ownership or inheritance of the disputed land; the land remained registered to LIDECO and there was no proof of transfer or distribution of the estate to the 1st respondent; thus, he lacked capacity to sue and the DLHT proceedings, judgment, and decree were nullified.
Source excerpt
The Respondent's long, uninterrupted possession and status as widow of the purchaser established sufficient legal interest and ownership of the disputed land; the trial tribunal properly evaluated the evidence and considered the findings from the visit to the locus in quo; the Appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed a land ownership claim, holding that the defendants had a better title to Plot No. 2007, Kawe Beach, and awarded them costs.
Explore more
