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 Tribunal's decision was vitiated by procedural irregularities in the site visit, failure to establish valid title transfer, lack of spousal consent, and reliance on unsupported oral authorization. The Respondent failed to prove ownership to the required legal standard, and the Tribunal misapplied legal principles governing land transactions.
Source excerpt
The appellant failed to provide specific evidence or identify which admitted exhibits were disregarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal properly considered the evidence and site visit notes, and the appellant's complaints were general and unsupported. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the claim was correct as the appellant did not prove ownership or trespass to the required standard.
Source excerpt
The tribunal failed to resolve material issues, particularly regarding the Ministry of Lands' directive prohibiting surveys until boundary disputes were resolved, and did not adequately address the core dispute, rendering the judgment a nullity and necessitating a retrial.
Source excerpt
The High Court nullified a land tribunal decision after finding the tribunal failed to record and consider findings from a site visit, a serious procedural irregularity.
High Court Land Division appeal over a disputed Dar es Salaam plot failed. The court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, finding the respondent’s evidence stronger.
The High Court dismissed a land appeal over boundary encroachment, holding that alleged site-visit irregularities did not nullify the tribunal’s findings.
High Court allowed a land appeal, holding the tribunal wrongly decided the merits on a restoration application and relied on an unprocedural site visit.
The High Court dismissed a land appeal, holding that the disputed area was an open space under local authority control and that no trespass was proved.
Explore more
