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
Land appeal dismissed: the appellant failed to prove ownership, and the court upheld the sale of the land in execution of a decree against the husband.
The first respondent failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that she was lawfully married to the second respondent as required by law; the letter from the Street Chairman is not sufficient proof of marriage under section 55 of the Law of Marriage Act; contradictions between pleadings and testimony undermined her case; therefore, the trial Tribunal erred in its findings and decision.
Source excerpt
The appellant failed to prove how his father acquired possession of the disputed land due to contradictions between pleadings and evidence. The court found the appellant's father was an invitee, not an owner, and adverse possession does not apply to invitees. The respondent's evidence was stronger and met the required standard of proof.
Source excerpt
The appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof to establish ownership of the disputed properties. The evidence and documents presented by the respondent were heavier and consistent, and the tribunal properly evaluated the evidence. There were no material contradictions or procedural errors warranting appellate intervention. The tribunal's decision declaring the respondent as lawful owner is upheld.
Source excerpt
The appellant failed to strictly prove ownership of the disputed land as required by law, with inconsistencies in pleadings and evidence, and no continuous interest established. The trial tribunal properly analyzed the evidence and the judgment was not illegal for failure to consider assessors’ opinions.
Source excerpt
The High Court allowed a land appeal and quashed a tribunal decision, holding that the dispute land had not been sufficiently described, making the suit incompetent.
The 1st respondent failed to prove ownership of the disputed land on the balance of probabilities. The evidence and pleadings of the appellant were consistent and credible, showing allocation and possession of the land since 1990. The trial tribunal erred in law and fact by disregarding the appellant's evidence and misapplying the standard of proof. The appellant is declared the lawful owner, and the 1st respondent's claim is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The appellant failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to prove that the property was encumbered by a valid mortgage at the time of sale. The Tribunal was correct in finding that the 1st Respondent acquired good title, as the sales and transfer documents were credible and unrebutted. The claim of a loan top-up was not pleaded or substantiated. The perpetual injunction was justified as the appellant had no enforceable mortgage rights at the time of sale.
Source excerpt
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to plead or prove the existence of guarantors, collaterals, or undue influence, and was bound by her voluntary commitment to repay the loans. The trial court's decision was based on the appellant's admissions, the evidence presented, and the principle that parties are bound by their contracts and pleadings.
Source excerpt
There was no need to join the Village Government as a necessary party since there was no evidence of government allocation or title deed; the trial Tribunal had jurisdiction and properly evaluated the evidence. The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
