Kadege Alakara Judgment
The High Court dismissed a land appeal over a 50-acre dispute, finding the appellant had not proved ownership of the land on a balance of probabilities.
- Trespass
- Burden of proof
- Ownership
- Sale agreement
- Locus in quo
- Land-law
Tanzania Source-linked decisions Coverage checked
Tanzania Case Law
Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
- Courts on this page
- 2 court collections
- Last checked
Search and filter Tanzania case law
Results update automatically as you type.
Tanzania decisions
Decisions matching the current search
ISARAEL NELSON
Appellant failed to prove ownership of the disputed land by oral or documentary evidence; burden of proof not discharged as required by law.
Source excerpt
- Ownership
- Trespass
- Burden of proof
- Res judicata
LAND CASE BHOKE SELEMAN
The High Court at Musoma recorded a consent judgment settling a land dispute over alleged road reserve plots, with compensation to be paid before demolition.
- Road reserve
- Demolition
- Compensation
- Injunction
- Ownership
- Land-law
PAULO BUNGE
The 3rd respondent had already exchanged the disputed land with the 1st respondent in 1984, as evidenced by a written and witnessed agreement. Therefore, the 3rd respondent had no title to transfer to the appellant in 2009. The appellant failed to prove ownership, and the trial tribunal's decision was correct.
Source excerpt
- Ownership
- Title to land
- Burden of proof
- Documentary evidence
- Limitation of actions
111
The High Court at Mbeya found most plaintiffs failed to prove ownership of the disputed land, but awarded general damages to three plaintiffs for part of the health centre site.
- Trespass
- Ownership
- Compensation
- Statutory notice
- Damages
- Land-law
winstone safii
The 1st respondent proved ownership of the disputed land on balance of probabilities through corroborated testimony, while appellant and 3rd respondent failed to establish valid title due to lack of evidence on prior acquisition and defective sale agreements; certificate of title obtained during proceedings does not override prior interests.
Source excerpt
- Ownership
- Burden of proof
- Necessary parties
- Title registration
- Sale agreement validity
- Capacity to own land
4
The High Court allowed a land appeal, set aside the tribunal’s decision, and held that the appellant proved trespass over the disputed portion of Plot No. 1785 Block X.
- Ownership
- Trespass
- Pleadings
- Compensation
- Right to be heard
- Land-law
CHARLES GREGORY KAMAKA
The DLHT erred in dismissing the complaint as res judicata because the appellant and his father, the true owner, were not parties to the previous proceedings; a mere keeper cannot be regarded as the true owner for purposes of suit.
Source excerpt
- Res judicata
- Ownership
- Licensee rights
- Appeal procedure
philipo j soah versus mchungaji zacharia nahumu 2024 tzhc 596 12 february 2024
The High Court dismissed a land appeal, upholding a tribunal finding that the respondent proved ownership and that the reliefs awarded matched the prayers made.
- Ownership
- Burden of proof
- Reliefs granted
- Ex-parte proceedings
- Land-law
- Burden-of-proof
MUHAMADI NJEKULE SCANNED
The appellant failed to prove ownership of the entire eight acres but was entitled to three acres originally allotted to him as an invitee in 1993. Locus standi was not a valid issue as the appellant was the claimant. The suit was not time-barred, and adverse possession did not apply as the appellant was not a trespasser.
Source excerpt
- Ownership
- Locus standi
- Adverse possession
- Limitation of actions
Explore more