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 High Court dismissed a land appeal, upholding the tribunal’s finding that the dispute land was determined on the evidence and that visiting the locus in quo was discretionary.
High Court land appeal allowed in part after finding trial proceedings were irregular and unfair, leading to nullification and a retrial before a competent tribunal.
High Court land appeal set aside the appellate tribunal’s decision and ordered a retrial after finding procedural irregularity that denied the appellant a fair hearing.
Second appeal over a 4-acre land dispute was dismissed. The High Court upheld concurrent findings on ownership, locus standi, evidence, and assessors’ opinions.
The High Court upheld the dismissal of a land ownership appeal, finding the respondent’s evidence and witnesses more credible than the appellant’s.
Civil appeal over alleged debt and documentary proof. The High Court found part of the respondent’s admission should have been recorded, but ordered a trial de novo on the disputed amount.
The respondent's appeal to the District Land and Housing Tribunal was not time barred as leave was granted and the appeal was filed within the prescribed period. The evidence presented by the appellant and his witnesses in the Ward Tribunal was weightier than that of the respondent, justifying the Ward Tribunal's decision in favor of the appellant.
Source excerpt
The appeal was dismissed because the Ward Tribunal met the statutory minimum composition, and there was no legal anomaly in exceeding the minimum number. The findings of fact by the lower tribunals, based on credibility of witnesses and evidence, were upheld as there was no misdirection or non-direction warranting interference by the appellate court.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed a land appeal, holding that the tribunal had properly assessed the evidence and that the appellant should have challenged execution by objection proceedings.
Explore more
