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’s Land Division held that a fourth defendant had mortgaged her property to secure a bank loan, and ordered vacant possession for sale after default.
The court is satisfied that the parties have lawfully compromised the suit through a deed of settlement, and accordingly records the settlement as a consent judgment, binding all parties and marking the matter as settled and withdrawn.
Source excerpt
The High Court struck out a land suit because it was refiled after a prior withdrawal without leave, finding the same cause of action. A jurisdiction objection failed.
Appellant failed to prove respondent intended to sell the mortgaged property without observing procedure; courts lack jurisdiction to vary contractual terms agreed by parties; appeal dismissed.
Source excerpt
The High Court entered a consent judgment after the parties settled a land and debt dispute, with the defendant admitting liability and agreeing to pay in instalments.
The instant suit is barred by res judicata as the subject matter, parties, and issues have been finally determined in Land Application No. 494 of 2018 and Civil Case No. 12261 of 2024, and the subsequent suit merely continues the same dispute regarding loan recovery and mortgage enforcement.
Source excerpt
The present suit is barred by constructive res judicata as the subject matter and parties are substantially the same as in Land Case No. 16 of 2021, which was determined to finality by a consent judgment. The addition of new parties is due to statutory requirements and does not alter the core dispute. The court is barred from entertaining the suit as it constitutes an abuse of process.
Source excerpt
The High Court in Shinyanga dismissed an application for temporary injunction over mortgaged property, finding no serious triable issue, irreparable harm, or favorable balance of convenience.
The High Court dismissed a borrower’s appeal after finding no disclosed cause of action against the bank and no evidence of breach of the loan agreement.
The applicant failed to demonstrate that the attached properties were not part of the mortgage collateral and did not prove irreparable loss or that the balance of convenience favoured him. The documentation showed the collateral included all machinery at the premises, and losses claimed were compensable by damages.
Source excerpt
Explore more
