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 Court of Appeal dismissed a land appeal on right of way, holding the appellants failed to prove a granted or prescriptive easement and had not properly pleaded fraud.
The application was dismissed because the limitation period was correctly calculated from 2008, when the respondent confronted the applicant, not from 2001, and the argument regarding adverse possession was both inconsistent and not properly raised before the High Court.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed a land appeal as incompetent because the memorandum of appeal was not accompanied by a decree, as required by the Civil Procedure Code.
The appellant's claim is time barred as the respondent has been in possession of the suit land since 1998, exceeding the 12-year limitation period for recovery of land under the Law of Limitation Act. The principle of adverse possession applies, extinguishing the appellant's rights. Procedural irregularities alleged do not affect the outcome as the suit is legally barred.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed a land appeal, holding the claim was time-barred after 13 years of peaceful possession and that the respondent’s title arose from a lawful sale.
The Court of Appeal upheld dismissal of an appeal over IRGOBAWE Farm, holding that strict statutory requirements for transfer by operation of law were not met.
The High Court dismissed a land appeal, holding that adverse possession did not override registered title and that the limitation period ran from the respondent’s purchase.
The High Court dismissed a land appeal, holding the claim was brought too late and was barred by limitation and prescription after Operation Vijiji re-allocation.
The High Court allowed a second criminal appeal over trespass, restoring the Primary Court’s acquittal and holding that long, undisturbed possession supported a claim by prescription.
The District Court erred in reversing the trial court's findings, as the trial court properly assessed witness credibility and there was no misdirection or unreasonableness. The respondent's possession was contentious and not as of right, so prescription does not apply.
Source excerpt
Explore more
