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
Applicants failed to establish a prima facie case as they did not provide evidence of ownership of the disputed land. Without proof of ownership, irreparable loss and balance of convenience cannot be established. All conditions for granting Mareva injunction must be met, and applicants failed to satisfy them.
Source excerpt
Failure to join necessary parties, specifically the Conservation Commissioner, Tanzania Wildlife Management Authority (TAWA), and non-compliance with statutory notice requirements under section 6(2) of the Government Proceedings Act, renders the application incompetent. Misjoinder and non-joinder rules do not cure omission of necessary parties. Applicants lack locus standi as only the Village Council can represent village land. Application is struck out.
Source excerpt
The High Court in Mwanza overruled preliminary objections in a land application, holding that a request for temporary orders was not a “suit” requiring statutory notice.
The High Court struck out a land claim as premature because the plaintiff failed to comply with mandatory 90-day statutory notice requirements before suing the defendants.
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.
Applicants failed to demonstrate a strong prima facie case or a good and arguable case for injunction, failed to prove ownership or justifiability of relief, granting injunction would cause greater hardship to third party lessee.
Source excerpt
Application granted as respondents did not contest and court has jurisdiction to issue interim orders to preserve status quo pending expiry of statutory notice.
Source excerpt
The suit is barred by res judicata as the issues raised were or ought to have been raised and determined in the previous suit (Land Case No. 8 of 2023) between the same parties regarding the same subject matter and loan balance; the plaintiff is not permitted to split causes of action or initiate parallel proceedings, and the court cannot reopen matters already decided.
Source excerpt
Applicants demonstrated triable issue regarding land ownership, imminent irreparable harm from eviction, and legal impediment due to statutory notice. All conditions for Mareva injunction are satisfied.
Source excerpt
The suit was prematurely instituted as the plaintiff failed to serve the Commissioner for Lands with the mandatory 90 days’ statutory notice required by Section 6(2) of the Government Proceedings Act, rendering the suit incompetent.
Source excerpt
Explore more
