Arusha Blooms Limited v Hon. Permanent Secretary Ministry of Finance, Hon. Permanent Secretary, Ministry of State Presidents Office and Planning Investment, Bank of Tanzania, The Commissioner for Lands, The Assistant Registrar of Titles Arusha, Arusha District Council, The Hon. Attorney General, Vintan W. Mbirro (Defunct Received Manager Arusha Bloom Ltd), Daniel B Welwel (Defunct Received Manager Arusha Bloom Ltd) and Kitindi & Company Limited

THE JUDICIARY OF TANZANIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA MISCELLANEOUS LAND APPLICATION NO. 000018437 OF 2026 ARUSHA BLOOMS LIMITED .............................. COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT / PLAINTIFF VERSUS HON, PERMANENT SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE .............................. RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT HON, PERMANENT SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF STATE PRESIDENTS OFFICE AND PLANNING INVESTMENT .............................. RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT BANK OF TANZANIA .............................. RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT THE COMMISSIONER FOR LANDS .............................. RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF TITLES ARUSHA .............................. RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT ARUSHA DISTRICT COUNCIL .............................. RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL .............................. RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT VINTAN W. MBIRO (DEFUNCT RECEIVED MANAGER ARUSHA BLOOM LTD) .............................. RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT DANIEL B WELWEL (DEFUNCT RECEIVED MANAGER ARUSHA BLOOM LTD) .............................. RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT KITINDI & COMPANY LIMITED .............................. RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT RULING MWASEBA, J Page. 1 7/08/2026 & 14/08/2026 The applicant, Arusha Blooms Limited, and the TIB Development Bank Limited and Others have a long-standing dispute over defaults on substantial government-backed loans and the legality of a public auction used to recover those debts. The applicant, a horticultural company incorporated in 1996, obtained several government loans between 2004 and 2014 to expand its flower export business. As security, the applicant pledged Farm No. 140/1, a prime agricultural land parcel of approximately 1,486 acres in the Arumeru District. By 2011, the applicant faced severe financial difficulties. To facilitate loan repayment, a Performance Management Agreement (PMA) was executed, which led to the subdivision of the property into Farm No. 140/1/1 (786 acres for agriculture) and Farm No. 140/1/2 (700 acres for real estate development). Under this plan, serviced plots from the real estate portion were to be sold to settle the debt. In 2016, the applicant proposed an investment from the international firm IDEA (UK) Ltd to repay its debts, but TIB rejected the proposal. The applicant was subsequently placed under receivership. On October 27, 2018, a public auction was held, at which TIB Development Bank emerged as the successful bidder and purchased the property for TZS 35.5 billion. Thereafter, the applicant complained that the property was worth over TZS 70 billion and was Page. 2 sold at a gross undervalue. She further complained of a procedural irregularity that TIB paid only a 25% deposit and never paid the remaining 75%, which should have legally nullified the auction. She also contended that the property was illegally transferred to the Ministry of Finance and the President of Tanzania without fair compensation. The Respondents maintain that the auction was lawful and transparent. They state that the property was properly assessed at a market value of TZS 41.5 billion, making the TZS 35.5 billion sale price lawful, as it exceeded 75% of the appraised value. They argue that the transfers were necessary to recover outstanding government loans and that the property is now lawfully used for national interests and is currently guarded by Jeshi la Kujenga Taifa (JKT). This dispute has seen multiple court interventions. In 2019, in Misc. Civil Cause No. 809 of 2018, the High Court dismissed the Applicant's petition to refer the matter to arbitration, holding that the petition had been "overtaken by events" because the auction had already concluded and a certificate of sale had been issued. In 2026, the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2025 noted a patent confusion in the record about the exact date the High Court delivered its ruling. The Court of Appeal adjourned the hearing, directing the parties to resolve this anomaly at the High Court level before the appeal could proceed. Page. 3 Now the applicant herein has filed this application under the provisions of Section 2 (1) and (3) of JALA, Section 68 (c) and (e), Section 95, and Order XXXVII Rule 1 (a) and 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, Cap 33 R.E 2023. She seeks orders of this Court granting an interim injunction maintaining the status quo ante and further restraining the 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , and 7 nd rd th th th st th respondents from disposing of or alienating the applicant’s landed property measuring approximately 1486 acres, initially registered as farm No. 140/1, CT No. 4437, before being divided into farm 140/1/1, bearing CT No. 4437, measuring 786 acres, and 710 plots forming part of farm No. 140/1/2, bearing CT No. 42056, measuring 700 acres, both situated at Malalua Nduruma in Arusha District in Arusha Region, pending the institution of a Land Case intended to be filed by the applicant upon expiry of ninety (90) days’ statutory notice, which has been served upon the respondents. After being served with the application, the respondents countered it by filing a counter-affidavit and a preliminary objection that: 1. This Honourable Court has no Jurisdiction to entertain this Application as the Applicant has already lodged Notice of Appeal and Appeal to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania challenging the decision of this Court in Misc. Civil Application Cause No. 809/2018 between the Applicant herein and the 6 , 8 and 9 Respondents th th th regarding the same subject matter and cause of action. The objection was raised at the commencement of the proceedings. Consequently, the hearing of the substantive application was stayed pending Page. 4 the determination of the preliminary objection. At the hearing of the objection, the applicant was represented by Mr. Moses Mahuna, learned advocate, assisted by Mr. Andrew Maganga, learned advocate. The 1 to 8 st th respondents were represented by Mr. Masunga Kamihanda, learned Senior State Attorney. The preliminary objection was disposed of orally. Submitting in support of the preliminary objection, Mr. Masunga stated that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the application because the applicant has already lodged a notice of appeal and an appeal to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania against the decision of this Court in Misc. Civil Application No. 809 of 2018 concerning the same subject matter. The learned State Attorney contended that any relief against the alleged disposal of Farm No. 140/1/1 and 140/1/2 ought to have been sought through an application for stay of execution before the Court of Appeal of Tanzania, where Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2025 is still pending. He supported his argument with Amani Mwakang'ata vs Growmore Properties Limited & Another (Civil Application No. 926 of 2026) [2026] TZCA 750 (3 July 2026), which states that lodging a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania deprives this Court of jurisdiction to entertain a similar application. He therefore urged the Court to dismiss the application. In reply, Mr. Mahuna contended that the objection was misconceived because the proceedings before the Court of Appeal of Tanzania and the Page. 5 present application are not the same proceedings. Learned counsel relied, inter alia, upon the principle of res sub judice and submitted that this Court retains jurisdiction to determine the present application. In rejoinder, Mr Kamihanda maintained that his preliminary objection is founded on jurisdiction, not res sub judice; he therefore argued that the applicant’s submission is misguided. On his preliminary objection, counsel insisted that, since there is a pending appeal to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania, this Court lacks jurisdiction. I have considered the submissions of both learned counsel and the authorities cited. The respondents’ objection rests on the proposition that, upon lodging a Notice of Appeal and instituting Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2025 before the Court of Appeal of Tanzania, this Court became devoid of jurisdiction to entertain the present application. This application is less concerned with the principle of res sub judice, which counsel for the applicant raised in his reply submission. In determining this objection, the Court must look beyond the description of the proceedings and examine the substance of the dispute which the applicant seeks to place before this Court. It is not sufficient, in my considered view, to say that the present application and Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2025 before the Court of Appeal of Tanzania are different proceedings merely because they arise under different procedural circumstances. The material question is Page. 6 whether the matters sought to be determined in the present application are connected with the same subject matter already before the Court of Appeal of Tanzania, and whether determining the present application would interfere with the appellate proceedings. The record demonstrates that the dispute in both proceedings concerns the same subject matter, namely, Farm Nos. 140/1/1 and 140/1/2. The alleged disposal of those properties, which forms the basis of the reliefs sought in the present application, is not an independent or subsequent transaction separate from the proceedings in Misc. Civil Application No. 809 of 2018. Rather, it arises from the same factual and legal controversy that gave rise to that application and, ultimately, to Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2025 before the Court of Appeal of Tanzania. In substance, the applicant seeks orders in this Court that directly bear upon the same property and the same course of events that are the subject of the pending appeal. The principle governing the effect of a Notice of Appeal is well settled. Upon the institution of an appeal to the Court of Appeal, the High Court is deprived of jurisdiction to entertain proceedings that would have the effect of reopening, reconsidering, or otherwise dealing with the matter giving rise to the appeal. This position was well enunciated in the Court of Appeal’s decision in Afro Helicopter (T) Ltd v. Jensen (1990) TLR 142, where Kisanga, J. held that Page. 7 “Since there is a notice of appeal the court ceased to have jurisdiction in the matter as the proceedings are seized of the Court of Appeal” Further, the Court of Appeal in the case of Mohamed Enterprises T. Ltd v. The Chief Harbour Master & Another (Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2015) [2018] TZCA 280 (26 October 2018), the Court of Appeal of Tanzania reiterated that the institution of a notice of appeal deprives the High Court of its power to entertain the proceedings giving rise to the notice of appeal. The Court further recognised that even where proceedings are technically different, the critical consideration is whether the determination of the pending appeal is essential to the existence or determination of the subsequent proceedings. I have also considered the case of Amani Mwakang'ata v. Growmore Properties Limited & Another (Civil Application No. 926 of 2026) [2026] TZCA 750 (3 July 2026) cited by Mr. Masunga, where the Court of Appeal of Tanzania insisted of its earlier position that once notice of appeal is lodged in the higher court, the lower court lacks jurisdiction until the final determination of the appeal or striking out of the notice of appeal or being withdrawn. The rationale behind that principle is readily apparent. Once the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal has been invoked, the High Court cannot, through another proceeding, assume jurisdiction over the same controversy in a manner that may result in conflicting decisions. The jurisdiction of the two courts must operate in a manner that preserves the hierarchical structure of the judicial system and avoids parallel adjudication of Page. 8 the same controversy. Jurisdiction being everything, as famously held in Owners of the Motor Vessel "Lillian S" v. Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd (1989] KLR 1 cited with approval in the case of Yu Sung Construction Ltd v. Attorney General of the Republic of South Sudan (Reference No.21 of 2019) [2025] EACJ 16 (26 November 2025) (Tanzlii), the Court must down its tools at this point. I therefore find that Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2025 is not merely a proceeding which happens to concern the same property. It is an appellate proceeding arising from the same factual and legal controversy from which the present application derives. For the foregoing reasons, I sustain the preliminary objection. The present application is accordingly incompetent for want of jurisdiction and is hereby struck out. Due to the nature of this application, each party shall bear its own costs. It is so ordered. Dated at ARUSHA this 14th of August 2026 . N. R MWASEBA JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT Page. 9