|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| October 2021 |
|
|
Representative-suit application struck out because supporting affidavit lacked proper verification specifying sources of information.
Civil procedure – representative suit (Order I r.8 CPC) – requirement of common interest and notice; preliminary objections – distinction between pure points of law and questions of fact; affidavit verification – mandatory requirement to specify sources of information in verification clause.
|
29 October 2021 |
|
Representative-suit application struck out for defective affidavit verification; preliminary objection on verification upheld.
Civil Procedure – Representative suit (Order I Rule 8 CPC) – Affidavit verification (Order VI Rule 15(i)) – Preliminary objections – Competence – Defective verification renders affidavit incurably defective and application liable to be struck out.
|
29 October 2021 |
|
Representative-suit application struck out for defective affidavit verification; consent/authenticity issues deemed factual and not preliminary.
Civil Procedure – Representative suit under Order I Rule 8 CPC – requirement of common interest, consent and notice to represented persons – genuineness and authenticity of list of persons. Civil Procedure – Preliminary objections – distinction between pure points of law and factual issues; factual matters not suitable for preliminary disposal. Evidence/Affidavit – Verification clause – must specify which facts are from personal knowledge and which from information supplied; defective verification renders affidavit and application incompetent.
|
29 October 2021 |
|
Court found the government valuation fair and ordered payment at Tsh 35,000 per sq. metre; higher claims dismissed.
Compulsory acquisition – adequacy of compensation – burden of proof (Evidence Act s110) – valuation procedure by government valuers – deposit of compensation with Regional Administrative Secretary – damages for mental/psychological harm require evidential proof.
|
29 October 2021 |
|
Court declares original land caveat removed and orders respondent to pay costs.
Land law – Caveat – Removal of caveat – Whether the basis for lodging a caveat still exists – Effect of withdrawal and re‑registration of caveat pending appeal – Costs follow event.
|
29 October 2021 |
|
Applicant failed to satisfy the conjunctive Atilio injunction tests and relied on a defective affidavit, so the injunction was dismissed.
Civil Procedure – Temporary injunctions – three Atilio v Mbowe principles: triable issue, irreparable injury, balance of convenience – must be satisfied conjunctively. Evidence – supporting affidavit must correctly identify deponent and applicants; a defective affidavit undermines the application. Mortgage / Security enforcement – borrower must show irreparable harm and balance in favour to restrain bank's enforcement steps.
|
29 October 2021 |
|
Plaintiff proved lawful ownership by valid sale and transfers; defendant’s duress claim unproven, injunction and costs awarded to plaintiff.
Land law – sale and transfer of registered land – validity of sale agreement signed by administrator and co-owner – alleged coercion/duress not proved – burden of proof in civil cases – declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction.
|
29 October 2021 |
|
Disagreement with a court's costs order is generally appealable, not reviewable; review reserved for manifest errors on the record.
Civil procedure — Review jurisdiction — Error on the face of the record — Discretionary costs under section 30(1) Civil Procedure Code — Retrospective application of statute (Arbitration Act, 2020) — Remedy by appeal not review.
|
29 October 2021 |
|
Applicant failed to account for delay and alleged illegality was not apparent on the record; extension refused.
• Civil procedure – Extension of time – Section 14(1) Law of Limitation Act – need to account for each day of delay.
• illegality as exceptional ground – Valambia principle – illegality must be apparent on the face of the record to justify extension.
• Competence of application – setting aside a non-ex-parte ruling where applicant participated – appropriate remedy is appeal or review.
• Requirement for clarity and particulars in affidavit (dates and events) when seeking extension of time.
|
29 October 2021 |
|
Extension of time denied where applicant failed to account for delay and alleged illegality was not apparent on the record.
Civil procedure – Extension of time – Section 14(1) Law of Limitation Act – requirement to account for each day of delay. Illegality – when illegality constitutes sufficient cause for extension – must be clearly apparent on the face of the record. Competence of application – setting aside a non-ex parte ruling and need to specify intended remedy (appeal, review or revision). Attendance at earlier proceedings – effect on claim of ignorance of proceedings.
|
29 October 2021 |
|
Failure to prove ownership in an ex parte land suit defeats trespass and damage claims.
Land — Proof of ownership — Unsurveyed land sold by vendors — Necessity to call vendors, village authority and material witnesses to corroborate sale; Evidence Act (sections 110–143) — burden of proof in civil cases; Ex parte proceedings — plaintiff still obliged to prove case; Trespass — requires proof of possession or ownership before relief can be granted.
|
29 October 2021 |
|
Leave to appeal granted where proposed grounds raised arguable issues about damages reasoning and auction procedures.
Land law — leave to appeal — threshold for granting leave: whether proposed grounds raise arguable issues of law or fact; award of general damages — adequacy of reasons; procedural irregularities at auction and repayment/deposit issues.
|
29 October 2021 |
|
Second appeal dismissed; sale agreement and locus visits established respondent's title; new necessary‑party complaint inadmissible.
Land law – second appeal limited to questions of law – appellate interference only for misapprehension of evidence or miscarriage of justice; locus in quo and sale agreement as evidence of title; objection of non-joinder not entertained when raised for first time on higher appeal; burden to prove ownership on balance of probabilities.
|
29 October 2021 |
|
Respondent's earlier purchase prevails; later title issued to appellant void under nemo dat and priority principles.
Land law – competing sales – nemo dat quod non habet; priority principle (first in time prevails); validity of title issued without good title; approval of disposition under Land Act and Land Registration Act; probative weight of documentary evidence vs hearsay.
|
29 October 2021 |
|
Earlier purchaser with prior approved disposition prevails; later-issued title to subsequent buyer is void against that prior interest.
Land law – competing dispositions – nemo dat quod non habet and principle of priority – earlier purchaser with prior approval of disposition prevails; title issued to later purchaser void as against prior interest; evaluation of documentary evidence and allegations of registry tampering.
|
29 October 2021 |
|
Appellants failed to prove sufficient cause for extension of time; appeal dismissed and costs borne by each party.
Extension of time – requirement to show sufficient cause and account for each day of delay; alleged illegality as ground for extension – must be substantiated; appellate interference with discretionary decisions – only where discretion misapplied; Land Disputes Courts Act s.43 – not invoked where threshold not met.
|
29 October 2021 |
|
A Third-Party Notice filed without required leave and lacking a disclosed cause of action was struck out with costs.
Civil procedure – Third-Party Notice – Requirements of Order 1 Rule 14 CPC – mandatory leave before joining third parties; Civil procedure – Third-Party Notice – necessity to disclose cause of action and factual connection for contribution or indemnity; Procedure – striking out defective third-party proceedings; Concession – counsel’s concession of objections may dispose of preliminary points.
|
29 October 2021 |
|
A third‑party notice filed without court leave and failing to disclose a cause of action was struck out with costs.
Civil procedure – Third‑party practice – Order 1 Rule 14 CPC – leave of Court is mandatory before presenting a third‑party notice. Civil procedure – Third‑party notice must disclose a cause of action and a nexus to the defendant’s liability for contribution or indemnity. Preliminary objections – concession by opposing counsel may dispose of objections without further adjudication.
|
29 October 2021 |
|
Appeal allowed: limitation barred late challenge to sale; tribunal erred by not visiting locus in quo and mis-awarding 8 acres.
Land law; limitation periods – time bar to challenge sale of land under Limitation Act; evidentiary assessment – admissibility and weight of sale agreement; civil procedure – necessity of locus in quo to ascertain boundaries and measurements; appellate remedy – quash and remit for fresh determination.
|
29 October 2021 |
|
|
29 October 2021 |
|
The court granted an interim injunction restraining the respondents from disposing of the disputed Msasani Peninsula property pending determination.
Civil procedure – interim injunction – grant where respondent concedes – preservation of status quo pending determination. Property law – injunction to restrain disposal or alienation of land (Plot No. 2055, Msasani Peninsula) – Certificate of Title DSM T1010386. Application under Section 68(c) and (e) and Order XXXVII rules 1(a) and 2(1) CPC.
|
29 October 2021 |
|
A taxing master's inconsistent, unexplained treatment of bill items warrants remittal for fresh taxation of each item.
Taxation of costs – Bill of costs – Taxing Master's duty to give reasons – Inconsistent treatment of items undermines award and warrants remittal for re‑taxation. Advocates' fees – instruction fees, VAT, travel and disbursements – require proper receipts and justification at taxation. Civil procedure – reference under Advocates Remuneration Order – supervisory review and remittal for fresh taxation.
|
29 October 2021 |
|
Unrevoked Letters of Offer in a surveyed area confer prima facie ownership; the applicant’s challenge failed.
Land law – surveyed land – Letters of Offer and Certificate of Title as prima facie proof of ownership; Municipal re-survey and allocation – effect of uncompleted revocation by Commissioner for Lands; Evidentiary burden – insufficiency of un-surveyed sale agreements to displace registered instruments; Non-calling of material witness – adverse inference; Allegations of fraud/irregularity in civil land disputes require high standard of proof.
|
29 October 2021 |
|
Mis-joining the Solicitor General in a suit against the Government is a fatal defect; application struck out, leave to refile granted.
Government Proceedings Act – Proper party in suits against the Government – Attorney General v. Solicitor General; mis-joinder of party. Procedural remedy – effect of mis-joining a party – striking out application vs. amendment. Notice validity – notice to Attorney General remains valid where Attorney General was aware and entered appearance. Relief in the interests of justice – leave to file fresh application within specified time; costs to follow cause.
|
29 October 2021 |
|
Failure to record ward tribunal coram and participation by a non‑hearing member invalidates the judgment; retrial ordered.
Land law – tribunal procedure – Ward Tribunal coram/daily attendance – irregular proceedings where attendance not recorded – participation in judgment by member who did not hear proceedings – proceedings invalidated; retrial ordered.
|
28 October 2021 |
|
Second appellate court set aside lower tribunals' decisions for failure to prove inheritance and for raising new issues.
Land law; appellate procedure — new grounds on appeal; parties bound by pleadings; burden of proof under s.110 Evidence Act; proof of inheritance/probate; necessity of documentary evidence for title.
|
28 October 2021 |
|
Appellate court quashed tribunal orders, found eight shops were handed over and ordered appellant to deliver the remaining two.
Land law – contract for construction and division of shop rooms; proof of possession and rent receipts; appellate review of factual findings; correction of tribunal orders requiring handover, rent payment and tenant vacatur; need for locus in quo where factual disputes on completion and habitability exist.
|
28 October 2021 |
|
Administratrix proved deceased's ownership; defendant's unstamped purchase inadmissible; trespass remedy granted.
Land law – ownership of village land – proof on balance of probabilities; Evidence – admissibility of instruments – requirement of stamp duty (s.47 Stamp Duty Act); Village land – role of village council in allocation; Probate – validity of appointment of administratrix is a separate probate matter; Remedies – declaration of ownership, demolition and vacant possession for trespass.
|
28 October 2021 |
|
Appellant's land claim fails where she accepted compensation and witnessed a sale, waiving rights against a bona fide purchaser.
Land dispute – ownership – deed of gift versus sale agreement – admissibility and weight of documentary evidence – credibility of witnesses – acceptance of compensation and signing as witness constituting waiver – bona fide purchaser protection.
|
28 October 2021 |
|
Appellant's acceptance of compensation and role as witness waived her claim; tribunal's finding upheld and appeal dismissed with costs.
Land law – ownership dispute – sale agreement as proof of transfer – witness-signature and acceptance of compensation can amount to waiver of claim – bona fide purchaser protection – credibility of evidence and tribunal findings upheld.
|
28 October 2021 |
|
Court remitted a bill of costs for re‑taxation because the taxing master's inconsistent award lacked adequate reasons.
• Taxation of costs – Advocates Remuneration Order – requirement for reasons by taxing master – inconsistent taxation findings grounds for re‑taxation.• Bill of costs – instruction fees, VAT, demand notices, travel and accommodation – adequacy of receipts and justification.• Remedy – remittal for re‑taxation de novo where taxing master’s award is tainted by inconsistency or lack of reasons.
|
28 October 2021 |
|
Extension granted to file appeal because a substantial illegality (spouse-consent issue) justified enlarging time despite delay.
Civil procedure — Extension of time to appeal — discretionary jurisdiction; good cause must be shown considering length and reasons for delay, prejudice and conduct. Law of Limitation Act s.19(2) — exclusion of time for obtaining copies of judgment/decree — exclusion is automatic when record shows dates of judgment, request and supply (Alex Senkoro). Delay — applicant must normally account for each day of delay (Bushiri; FINCA), but a substantial point of illegality may justify enlargement despite unexplained days. Illegality — point concerning spouse consent/signature held sufficiently important to warrant extension of time.
|
27 October 2021 |
|
Revision is barred under section 79(2) CPC against interlocutory tribunal orders while the main suit remains pending.
Civil procedure – Revision – Section 79(2) CPC – Revision not competent against interlocutory or preliminary orders unless they finally determine the suit. Land/tenancy – Miscellaneous application ordering payment of rent arrears pending main suit does not finally determine claim for breach of contract and damages. Alleged irregularities in interlocutory proceedings do not negate bar under section 79(2) absent clear final determination or established illegality.
|
27 October 2021 |
|
Delay excused where copy of tribunal ruling was obtained late; extension to appeal granted under Limitation Act.
Land law – extension of time to appeal – delay due to late supply of tribunal ruling – Law of Limitation Act s.19(2) – sufficiency of cause – name variation explained.
|
27 October 2021 |
|
Applicants granted extension to appeal due to late supply of Tribunal ruling; time to obtain copy excluded under Limitation Act.
Land law – Extension of time to appeal – Delay caused by late supply of Tribunal ruling – Section 19(2) Law of Limitation Act (exclusion of time to obtain copy) – Name variation explained – Technical delay excusable.
|
27 October 2021 |
|
Disputes over sales made during estate administration belong in probate courts; heirs lacking administrator status lack locus standi.
Land law – jurisdiction of Land Tribunal versus probate/administration (Primary) Court; sale of property during estate administration; locus standi – heir versus appointed administrator/executor (s.100 Probate and Administration of Estates Act); requirement that probate orders be in record before relying on them.
|
27 October 2021 |
|
A land dispute arising from estate administration is for the probate court; an heir (not administrator) lacks locus to sue.
Jurisdiction – Land Disputes Courts v. Probate/Administration Courts – disputes arising from administration of a deceased estate belong to probate/administration court. Locus standi – an heir who is not administrator/executor lacks legal capacity to sue in causes of action that survived the deceased (Probate and Administration of Estates Act, s.100).
|
27 October 2021 |
|
Appeal restored after counsel's hospitalization and applicant's transfer found to be sufficient cause to set aside dismissal.
Civil procedure — setting aside dismissal for want of prosecution — sufficient cause — illness of counsel and transfer of applicant; conduct before dismissal; absence of tribunal records; interest of justice; no prejudice.
|
27 October 2021 |
|
Wrong statutory citation rendered the extension application incompetent and the application was struck out.
Land law — Appeals from District Land and Housing Tribunal — First appeal procedure governed by Section 41(1)&(2) of the Land Disputes Courts Act; Wrong statutory citation (Section 38(1)) — renders application incompetent; Law of Limitation and Civil Procedure general provisions do not apply where specific appeal time-limits exist; Application for extension of time struck out for incompetence.
|
27 October 2021 |
|
Wrong citation of the enabling provision rendered the extension application incompetent and it was struck out.
Civil procedure – competence of application – wrong citation of enabling provision – effect is incompetence and striking out. Appeals – Land Disputes Courts Act – distinction between appeals from Ward Tribunal (s.38) and appeals from District Land and Housing Tribunal exercising original jurisdiction (s.41). Limitation law – specific statutory time bars (s.41(2) LDCA) displace general limitation or procedural provisions (Limitation Act, CPC).
|
27 October 2021 |
|
Appeal struck out for omission of a necessary party; leave granted to refile within 30 days.
Land procedure – Appeal – Joinder of necessary parties – Appeal struck out where appellant omitted a party who participated at trial and would be affected by appellate decision; leave to refile granted – Right to be heard/audi alteram partem – Amendment of parties at hearing stage not appropriate when raised late.
|
26 October 2021 |
|
A tribunal's sua sponte rejection of unopposed affidavit evidence without hearing the applicant violated the right to be heard, requiring quash and remittal.
Civil procedure – administrative irregularity – tribunal raising and deciding points suo motu without hearing parties violates the right to be heard (audi alteram partem). Evidence – affidavits and documentary annexures – court may scrutinise authenticity, but parties must be afforded opportunity to address objections. Land Disputes Courts Act s.43(1)(b) – power to quash and remit where fundamental procedural defects occasion miscarriage of justice. Case management – successive chairmen dealing with interlocutory matters does not necessarily amount to double determination of same cause.
|
26 October 2021 |
|
Failure to cite the enabling law in a chamber summons renders the application incompetent and subject to striking out.
Civil procedure – Chamber summons – Non‑citation of enabling law – Competence of application. Procedural defect – Wrong or absent citation of statute/provision renders proceedings incompetent. Overriding objective – Not a cure for failure to cite the law; omission goes to the root of the case. Relief – Strike out with leave to refile; no costs.
|
26 October 2021 |
|
Irregular auction cannot void completed sale to a bona fide purchaser; mortgagor’s remedy is damages against the mortgagee.
Land law – mortgagee's power of sale on default; statutory notice requirements – Land Act s127 and Auctioneers Act s12(2)-(3); burden to prove notice on mortgagee/auctioneer; bona fide purchaser protection – Land Act s135; remedy for irregular sale is damages under s135(4).
|
26 October 2021 |
|
The applicant’s extension application was struck out for being filed under the wrong statutory provision, with leave to refile.
Civil procedure – extension of time – discretionary relief – "sufficient cause" principle and factors to consider. Competency – proper statutory provision required when seeking extension to appeal decisions of District Land and Housing Tribunal (Section 41(2) vs Section 38(1)). Limitation law – Law of Limitation Act does not override specific limitation provisions in other written laws; Section 14(1) improperly relied upon.
|
26 October 2021 |
|
Extension application struck out for being filed under the wrong statutory provision, with leave to refile.
Extension of time – discretionary remedy – requirement of sufficient cause – illegality and delay in supply of certified copy considered. Procedural competence – wrong statutory provision (section 38(1) LDCA) used instead of section 41(2) – application struck out. Limitation law – Law of Limitation Act inapplicable where another written law prescribes limitation periods.
|
26 October 2021 |
|
Leave to appeal granted due to unresolved legal issue on village assembly approval of land allocations.
Land law; village land allocations; requirement of Village Assembly approval under Village Land Act; whether failure to obtain approval renders grantees trespassers; first-priority principle; leave to appeal under s.5(1)(c) AJA; inadmissibility of unpleaded locus in quo complaint.
|
26 October 2021 |
|
|
26 October 2021 |
|
Plaintiff sued the wrong party (Municipal Director); suit struck out — the municipal council must be sued.
Local Government Act s.14(1)(b) – capacity to sue and be sued; misjoinder/improper party – Municipal Director not a separate legal personality; preliminary objection (pure point of law); remedy under Order I r.10(2) CPC – striking out pleadings; plaint non-curable by amendment.
|
26 October 2021 |
|
Suit struck out for suing Municipal Director instead of the corporate municipal council; remedy is striking out, not amendment.
Local Government Act s.14 – urban authority is a body corporate and may sue/be sued; misjoinder of party – naming Municipal Director instead of corporate council; preliminary objection – pure point of law; Civil Procedure Code Order I r.10(2) – striking out wrongly joined party; remedy for suing wrong/non-existent party.
|
26 October 2021 |