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. 

14 judgments
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
14 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
January 2024
An application for revision filed before exercising an available right of appeal is incompetent and is struck out; each party bears its own costs.
Civil procedure – Revision v. Appeal – Revision is not an alternative to appeal; prerequisites to invoke revisional powers. Civil procedure – Incompetent applications – Defective applications seeking revision while appeal available are liable to be struck out. Civil procedure – Costs – Court’s discretion to order each party to bear own costs where matter is struck out early and defect conceded.
31 January 2024
An application for revision filed instead of pursuing an available appeal is incompetent and was struck out; each party bears its own costs.
Civil procedure – Revision v. Appeal – Revision is not an alternative to appeal; prerequisites for invoking revisional jurisdiction. Competency of pleadings – Defective/incompetent application; remedy is striking out. Costs – discretionary award; each party to bear own costs where defect conceded and matter not fully heard.
31 January 2024
Appellant’s late-raised limitation and adverse‑possession challenges fail; trial tribunal’s partial award is upheld.
Land law — Limitation of actions — Time bar under Limitation Act (12 years) — Adverse possession — Possession with consent vs without consent — Failure to raise limitation as preliminary objection at trial — Evaluation of evidence by trial tribunal.
31 January 2024
Suit struck out as res judicata: prior proceedings involved the same parties, land and cause of action.
Civil procedure — Res judicata — Application of section 9 Civil Procedure Code — identity of parties, subject matter and cause of action. Effect of a subsequently issued residential licence on prior land disputes — licence does not defeat res judicata. Execution of prior decree and its relevance to subsequent trespass claims. Authorities considered: precedents on res judicata and bar to relitigation.
29 January 2024
Counsel's proved illness constituted sufficient cause to set aside dismissal and restore the application.
Civil procedure – setting aside dismissal for want of prosecution – Requirement to show sufficient cause under Order XLIII Rule 6(1). Evidence – counsel's sickness (medical report) as sufficient cause for non-appearance. Procedural fairness – preliminary objections must be given prior notice; surprise objections not entertained. Restoration of proceedings – exercise of discretionary power to restore dismissed application.
25 January 2024
High Court held not exclusively competent to grant interim relief where District Land Tribunal has jurisdiction; application struck out with costs.
Civil procedure – jurisdiction – interim injunctions (maintenance of status quo/Mareva-type relief) – High Court inherent jurisdiction not exclusive. Land law – competence of District Land and Housing Tribunal to grant temporary/interim orders in land disputes. Mediation requirement – mandatory pre‑trial mediation does not bar seeking interim relief before the District Tribunal.
24 January 2024
Interim injunction granted to restrain auction of disputed residential property pending determination of ownership and mortgage dispute.
Land — Interim injunction — Tests in Atilio v Mbowe: prima facie case, irreparable injury, balance of convenience — Competing claims to title and alleged fraudulent registration/mortgage — Injunction to restrain auction pending trial.
10 January 2024
10 January 2024
Plaintiff's land and contract claims were not time-barred; pleaded cause of action and right to challenge receiver justified overruling preliminary objections.
Limitation — distinction between recovery of land (12 years) and contract claims (6 years); accrual of cause of action; cause of action — pleading against non-contracting parties; locus standi — mortgagor's right to challenge receiver appointment; preliminary objections — not proper where facts require evidence.
10 January 2024
10 January 2024
Property was pledged through the plaintiff's spouse for a third‑party loan, but the intended auction was illegal for failure to give mandatory notices.
Land law – mortgage of matrimonial home – whether property was pledged through spouse to secure third-party loan – evidential and pleading effect. Auction procedure – mandatory notices (60‑day default notice and 14‑day public/auction notice) – non‑compliance renders intended sale illegal. Evidence – burden of proof, parties bound by pleadings; doctrine of novation relevant to substitution of debtor obligations.
10 January 2024
Applicant failed to show good cause for extension of time; delay inordinate and alleged illegality not apparent.
Land law – Extension of time to appeal under section 41(2) Land Disputes Courts Act – "good cause" requirement and Lyamuya guidelines. Medical incapacity – Sickness must be shown to have prevented timely action after judgment to justify extension. Illegality – Only illegality apparent on the face of the record constitutes good cause; decisional errors requiring full record review do not. Poverty – Lack of funds to engage counsel is not by itself "good cause" where applicant could act in person or seek legal aid. Delay and diligence – Inordinate unexplained delay (~three years) and lack of diligence justify refusal of extension.
8 January 2024
An expired temporary injunction cannot be extended; extension applications must be filed before expiry.
Civil Procedure – Temporary injunction – Order XXXVII Rule 3 CPC – extension of injunction – whether an expired injunction can be extended; Jurisdiction – competence of extension application filed after injunction expiry; Timing – extension application must be filed while injunction remains in force.
8 January 2024
Failure to prove irreparable harm defeats an interim injunction despite a prima-facie case.
Injunctive relief – Order XXXVII r.1(a) & s.95 CPC – interim injunction requires triable issue, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience; prima-facie case suffices at interlocutory stage; failure to prove irreparable loss defeats injunction; documentary title transfer may negate claimed ‘intended sale’.
5 January 2024