Skip to document content Skip to main menu Skip to search

High Court Land Division

High Court Land  Division was established as a result of the land reforms which were implemented by the Land Act 1999. Until 2010, the Land Court had exclusive jurisdiction to determine land disputes relating to land with a pecuniary value of TZS 50,000 or more. 

4 judgments
Advanced search
All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
4 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
February 2014
Abdi Said vs Athumani Saidi Hiza (Misc. Land Case Appeal 11 of 2003) [2014] TZHCLandD 49 (19 February 2014)
A Ward Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over a land dispute exceeding the statutory pecuniary limit; proceedings quashed.
Land law – Ward Tribunal jurisdiction – pecuniary limit under s.15 Land Disputes Courts Act (Cap.216 R.E.2002) – land valuation and jurisdictional threshold – appellate duty to consider jurisdictional grounds – jurisdiction may be raised suo motu.
 19 February 2014
Emmanuel Swai vs Hassan Hydar (43 of 2012) [2014] TZHCLandD 10 (14 February 2014)
Prompt action and presence in court premises established sufficient cause to restore a dismissed land appeal.
Civil procedure — Restoration of dismissed appeal — Order XLIX r.19 CPC — Good cause for non-appearance — Applicant in court premises and prompt application — Dismissal vacated and appeal restored.
 14 February 2014
Clement Nkanga vs Manhyakende Mbinzagulile (Misc. Land Case Appeal 34 of 2012) [2014] TZHCLandD 18 (10 February 2014)
Appellate tribunal erred dismissing appeal as directed at a ‘stranger’ where trial records showed same parties; appeal allowed and matter remitted.
Land law – appeal procedure – appellate tribunal’s dismissal for wrong/addressee of appeal – identity of parties at trial and on appeal – remittal for rehearing. Civil procedure – party status cannot be disregarded without application and judicial order. Costs – awarded to successful appellant.
 10 February 2014
Denwill Mining Services Ltd vs Ally Msami & Others (Misc. Land Case Application 52 of 2013) [2014] TZHCLandD 43 (7 February 2014)
Affidavit containing legal argument and vague prayers rendered interlocutory application defective and it was struck out with costs.
Civil procedure – Interlocutory relief – Affidavits – Affidavits must be confined to facts within deponent’s knowledge; legal argument, opinions or prayers are impermissible. Civil procedure – Procedure – Distinction between pleadings (Order VI) and affidavits (Order XIX); objections based on wrong procedural premise are misconceived. Civil procedure – Interim injunctions – Relief must be properly and clearly pleaded; praying injunctions to subsist only for the duration of the application is improper and makes application vague and untenable.
 7 February 2014