sisi enterprises ltd vs minister for lands human settlements development others 2003 tzhc 101 16 october 2003

IN THE ITICIII COU'"T Cl1 V-ho. fi ' a t dar yb c i v i l ca"F) r;o . v? o f 2001 s e x ^ r r a P E is ^ n - -. l ? ) . . . . •. ■ . n / 'X M 'n ir r j V3RSUS MINISTER FOR LANDS HUMAN* TilTTLEMENT DiV^LO^r’FT « , , . FlKST DEFENDANT the commissioner for l u *>? ........seco?id d ";ran) ant THE REGISTRAR 0** TITLES . . . . . . . . *Tni XIO DEFENDANT ATTORNEY GENERAL ........ • * .FOtTRTIf D.EF'JNDANT J U D G vi Jl j'JJT IHEMA, J . On 1^th February, 2001 the pi a in i i f f *ST>I .o I IJi1 rEf.) f i l e d a su it against the M in ister f r v Ini/lo anl Mv.mvr. ‘. o t !. 1c Development, the Commissioner fo r Land.-, the R;-Cxr,fc.r.->r o f Tj/J.es arid the Attorney General herein aft-..:r r e fo r r o i t , a:; the d e - t ' i / i o p l a i n t i f f is claiming against the defendants 3tvoral.Lv anJ -joinl iy fo r a declaratory order to the a ffe c t that toe aoq'itijo.wion o f a '1 that pioce o f land comprised in C e r t ific a t e r-C t.'ccurv)’>ry no, 1 measuring 21.3 acres and popularly known as the Drive in ?;.n iz unlaw ful. Furthermore the p l a i n t i f f 7f claiv .1 is f-'r dr-.w..;r,$s, sp o o l# !, punitive and general; in te rest at J>'\% \>cr a'niii'.ir, c :.3l3 rj'i 'M 'll .:;s any other and fu rth er r e l i e f s a.-/.5 .. orders deeded .jn-v.t b ; th in It is a lle g e d by the p l a i n t i f f that it is the h o lie r of the su it land since iSth June, 19 ^ f->r a 99 yeors lease whereat it ha.? developed the same by b u ild in g r. 'V iv e in ciner.vj which vas in operation at the time o f f i l i n g the s u it under reference. The p l a i n t i f f has fu rth er stated th.ct on 5th June, "'999 i t r.ir-nod a L etter of Intent with the United States Department o f St a to so as to enter into an exclusive option to purchase the su it land at a consideration of IH -j; .3,000,000 as per Annexture - S i e i 2 to the p la in t. However on 3rd August, ^999 the plain t i f f c-1 at "is to have received a l e t t e r from the Co>nt.iissio:vjr fo r Laiv.ls in.C-.u*rni:^ it that the government intended to acquire the su it land pursuant to -Section k o f the Land A cqu isition Act 19^7 fo r the purpose r.f; -rrr.ntiiir; the same to the Embassy o f the United Scales o f 'hrerica i-i Oar es - Salaam. That, despite strong objection by the p l a i n t i f f t--> the intended acquistion , f o r among other reason, it s unlawfulness, the defendants went ahead with the acnuif.ition and the subsequent o ffe r o f the su it land to the Embassy o f the United Ota I:*,3 '>f America in Dar es Salaam. In return the defendants a )--> • a sura o f T."hs. 602,36.3,000 wji.o. .v . i. ~ V - .....-•* • •' - inadequate, hence the f i l i n g of the pro--on’. ~ i;.‘ In support o f it s claim fcr- general, special and punitire Av.^u^s the p la in t iff lias contended that the .act o f the dof p:vb,'il o' to unlr.wfu.il/ acquire the suit land denied it to conclude a deal with the ’i.iiibussy oi tue United States of America on a y illiiiC s e lle r v.;i l l i n g buver basis u ll.ow" a firm o ffe r of US 3,000,000 fo r the- -/.r.rohase o f the su it land. On tb-e other hand the Attorney General ansv/ering on behcl'C of the other defendants, has contended, inter alio., that the suit land wan prcpcrlv required by the President on 16th July, 1999 due to the ro«aon that the p la i n t i f f had ceased operating the Driv-e in Oinomd and the President's intention tc acquire the su it land through. pub.lioati^n in tho Governfu*ut Gazette on 16th July, 1999« In reply to the r.bove the p la i n t i f f stated that the Drive in Ciner/*-. business was no longer economically v w ’o la hence its roquett fo r ch.-.ny-j f f the user — class fo r redevelopment ’ z>nd Lhe ri.^.iuoji 1 *c t i l l xi'* fo r consideration with the Ministry vk^n the purrvr-vt-s-d ?\cq •; ;•xt- ion carried out. At the t r i a l the follow inf.; issues wex-© frar.^yd and j^i.ocd to by tlu parties namely:- ( a ) Whether there vms proper ard s u ffic ie n t notice £*r acquiring the su it land under the I/.-nd Acqi>J/~..it. ion Ar,l 1 . ( b ) Whether the purpose fo r which Iho land \sr;-j o.u^or Ledly acquired is a public purpose un:ler Section h ->r the /■')••? t.r.nv.i- i t ion Act 1967. (c ) Whether the proposed compensation offered by the vcrrraent iz adequate having regard to a l l the circumstance*; of the case. Both parties were represented bv counsel; tffessrc i>>ium.i ,?.nd i-ibw-i'soc appeared f^ r the p l a i n t i f f while l/n*. CLidowu learned State .ittorney represented the defendantr. Tv/o witnesses were called to tost i f y fo r the defendants, i .e . Ms B lasia ICibano, a Land O ffic e r nrA Mr. Deodatus Kahanda, a Valuer (DW2), while throe witnesser: namely ‘.Oituo Ivs.lolcola a professional valuer, (p-»2 ) Benedict Ferdinnrd Shayo {P ’*/3> ard JUg in Kanti Patel (IM 1 ) a l l former* employees o f the r.3a i n t i f f , te s tifie d f,.r the p la i n t i f f . It is on record that in th eir written submissions in support of the p l a i n t i f f ’s case Messrs 3omani and Mbwanbo learned c^u)’.?'.'! ahosa to ari^ie the second issue f i r s t fo r tbat over/thing olse hin^or, on i t , I w i l l therefore also address that v>s.!>, fi. . It is fo r c e fu lly argued by the 1* ..nod counsel fo r the p la in t iff th a t uh« f 7 ) that the compulsory a c quisition of ti e plain til f*s land by loo Presileij u in the manner and style in order to ox.tor it fcc the JJijb.'r.sy of the Unite:! States of America doea not fall within the 3 robit of the provisions of section of the Land A cquisition A c t 19 6 7 . '-'r * Cuilov/v cn the other ncuJ argued that the a c q u i s i tion was indeed for a public purpose us :,ic W 35 acquired for a general public use in tact the public for v/iwtevii rea^o*.is can use the- Embassy c o n fortably and there ore improved rorvices co the Tanzania Public b y the American Eraba’ jGy." With due respect to M r • C h i d o w u learned Ctato Attorney, it i.~ quite arjparent that the acquisition of the suit lr,'ir3 does not fall v'i.th:..n the d e f i n i t i o n or ambit of public jjurposc or interest. For as correctly stated i n B.P, Bhatt & Another Vs, ^iabib Tvajani (19./-’ ) ^»A. by IIxs Lordship Law, J . at page 5^6 cited by the p l c intiff*s ',dvoc-!!ve>s,*■it '.'.s not sufficient that public interest inpy borofi.t indirectly or iocidentaily if the prim a r y purpose of the a p p l i c a t i o n i~> to be no fit the la no lord 1 e interest, in the present case the Airiericaa IV.:UvoS,ry eid not the iiuM.i : e f 'y Tanzania, furthermore :;the phrase pul.lie purpose or int..re*,t ,..<1,ot'.'v.:.r el:jo it may mean, must include a p u r p o s e , th.*t i.s to zoy o n a i m or ohjs cl in w h i c h the general interest of the corr-rwrdty as copo-usd to the particular i nte r e s t of individuals is direcv.Jy an.) vit-lly c.-joe-nod I will accept therefore the arrmoivt lh*t r.ccniiL-itior. .'or the- p m - 1:0.7 c of granting, the- acquired land to build 2>2 Vdiyi z-rj of the United l>tetcs cf America much a s it advances thu diplomatic v- j.rt.i.on:> behv'oen Tar.z:;n.le or.d the USA, as not a direct, gcxer'-'l •jr.tere.'l; of t*.ie ‘ x’ ei.-.zir.ia'ccitinrui'iiLy or public. Indeed the w o r ding of r,ec;.ion ('i) (?) the 1-jnd Acquisition A c t 1967 is •i.nambigoufs and it r o a d c : - ‘ •Section 4 (1): Land shrill be decried tc be require:! for a public p urpose where it is required for srry 01 the following p u r p o s e s : for exclusive government u s o , f.yr /.vixrel public use ilex' any government scheme, for devel o p m e n t ef agricultural ltuiJ or fox 2 the provision o f sites for industrial, orricultural c.r cori;murc.i:il development, social serv.icos or lu rasing*:: Cle-yrly a grant to the United fJtates of America Embaesy ib not •within the scheme of the lav/ as legislated b y parliament s.'.’ d the l a w dost net stipulate "general p u b l i c u s e a s the learned .*Jt?le ALtorney would wish the court adopt. It is clearly provided tV.t I Iv. u.~c must bo for f.er.eral £.uklic u:je for any /fflvernn^nt^ ^scheme, It follovc. th^rofoi'e the ;>c m u.icition o f the suit land for granting it to the United states Departwent of iJtote for construction of a C h a n c e r y is not supported by the I: w of the lei id. I r e ite ra te a w e ll sr*toblishe;l p rin ciple of law an;’, as provided fo r in t A r tic le ?.h (2 ) o f rur constitution th.?,t wli^re the r i$ > t (a) -&£ the individual ?re tc be taken away by law such' law inuot be cle-.r arid u:3u'i:bi{'pi;n and be s t r i c t l y .adhered .t?v e?#d l-nght to bo construed s tr ic t ly .a e^phes 1.3 supr.liod). For ease o f reference, \ rtic le ?Ji ( ? ) o f the Constitution to U « in Kisws*hili: : 2*4 (2 ) - B ila va ’o ja th iri m.-..?.hnrti yn iba»vi -'.'.I' ~r- ya ( l ) v.i marufulcu kv/?. mtu jey-.te ’"vnypn.^'anyv/n roali yhke lev/a 'na^l'Vi'nuni ya leuitaifisha au tiKidbumuni -ner^iney-.' V.ila y* id h is i ya sheria ambayo ine.welea mnohart i ' ya kuion fidi?. in?.y''st£.h i l i . ; I t should be stressed that fo r ony acquisition to b« ."Justified i t has to be within the four comers o f th'_: la 1/ find not otherwise-. '.01 the uvont I hold the firm view that the ’virported acnuisition o f ti e suit, land is contrary to law and ipso fncto unlawful. Before I depart front the consideration. o f th I;-: iwcue 1 v/i.*.> tc make the follow in g observation. At t ’v tin ? irhen the acqu isition was ’ 'M.yis recommended by the M inister f - r Lands and Huon.n Soti/1 coior t t M his i.'J>roel lu’Vjy the President :the w illin ;,- s e lle r ’■.’illi.n y buyer t iation.-,; hod reach'--', an .advanced stage c e rta in ly in f u l l view and V.no-;'\ivl,;*,o nf t'^o ,.rv,: ir.tr y O ffic ia ls . This fa ct has been c le a rly plea.’, x! i*i ('0 o f V.si p lain t and -5.3 i f th is statement «\f foo t i.; irr-l.f.v- nt t • V'; 2 c-v It a defendants' rep ly thereto wc, c'\nt r* 5.noci Ip • f? ■**%t }x'y\v \% : vi Lion statement o f defence is? both preposterous and p.l *:\nono. Be as i t may the defendant.';? attitude or c -->iidnot -r. f ••ct’.ial situ ation may not be with--ut crw-er.uance in V:st s u it. M l said the answer to the second issue tha'1; is ’ Mother the - 30 I ' t vdi.'.eh the su it land was purportedly acnuir«v: i.H a public piir-*.;'' ? 2 in tervir; f the provisions o f Section k o f the Lew •cqu iaiti.- u A it is de.’ ik ito ly in the negative. Next fo r determination is the issue wh rther there was proper and s u ffic ie n t notice fo r acquiring the suut 2?nd urv’ c-r t1-** lo y , It has been pointed out quite c o rre c tly by l'nuned counsel fo r both parties that •Sections 6, 7 and 3 o f the Laud- Acquisition Act "!?67 c-.ve relevrr.t. Hovrever learned counsel fo r the p l a i n t i f f hr-'/e tj-:v,i3 further by ar^uin^- that the mandatory requirements in the said provisions v/tre r.ofc complied with. I s.,^ 3 . Much as the ..jefendonts h.ve .Vvta-.:h%d copy o f the relevant Government Notice - GN ^i'v9 o f V-v/’.V/0? to v/i’itte n statement o f defence (Ann. .02) i t is in evidence t1-o t tlu; ;si .Motory notice was not brought to the atten tion o f the p la in t if f , lia s ia Atanasi Kibano (D'/'l) in her testimony had this to say: • I r e c a ll that on ?th May , 1999 I despatched a l .'tter to the p l a i n t i f f as notice o f the r.oveT\j"v-,il rs iiitei:tiori to acquire the p l a i n t i l f 's land at D rive Girnima, T. dc-livore : tb*> l o i t e r by dispatch to the? Manager o f tuv p : '• •' - • V, * The l e t t e r whs received by h. uao tv w n fc v v -,o r.-'b'C a do not know,*5 Apart from the fa c t that the ooiO 3.etter v.a.s not vr educe d in court, i t s ev id en tia l value in rrry view iw o f no consequence i.a view of the subsequent p u blic atio n o f the Government Notice d^ted 16/7/99 coinin';; more than two months l a t e r . There i s a lo t to be desired as to how the purported a c q u isitio n isP« liondlod by the I’iin io try of Lsnds oi'd Liurron i^ottlornonfc Development* Thore v:c.s yet another l e t t e r c f f>th July, 1999 by i'i.H.C.S. Lonrjway then Commissioner fo r Lands in vitin jr the p l a i n t i f f to put up c case against the |0 intended a c q u isitio n o f hi.H lan d, The uncontroverted toc.tir.ony o f the p l a i n t i f f shows that th© p l a i n t i f f roccivcd the l e t t e r on 2nd August, 1999 w e ll o f te r the s u it land had been requ ired . A doubt lot: boon raised by the p l a i n t i f f to the o ffo o t that the CioVvirniiienh JJotico o f 1 6 /7 A >9 might not h?vo b«cn published on the given date* I t i s t r i t e low that the notice o f intention to c'c^u.uc lan d should bo published in the government gazette curl th;rN tho period o f notice be not lo sa than six v/eeks un less the President c e r t ifi fio w that the Irsnd i s urgently required fo r a p u b lic purpose, whereat the per-5o<l ray bo for such le s s e r 9o period as the President irc?y d ir e c t . I therefore agree with the learned oounjo.l 101* the p l » i n t i f f tin t the mandatory requirements fo r the noticc wore not cor.vp] i?-d \.dth, thus compounding so to s<?y the i l l e g a l i t y of the a c q u is itio n . Gould i t bo said that the p l a i n t i f f w-fs ever given opportur'ity to put up Io.g e^sc again st the intended a c q u isitio n in the circvwelancea a^v'vir.ii t‘...j1: the same was ju s t ifie d . In my Jiunible _yiovt I th in h -r-it. .\t coy lvite Jnving ruled that the purj>orted a c q u isitio n wos c le a r ly not nuda fo r "■.ibiic purpose in terms o f Section k o f the *»ct, I hold the v ie v tbat the notice and the manner in which i t w s issued ore o-.jually vcic^ and c f no consequencc, The third and lo s t issue (for deterr.iin'jti on i s tho adeniurcy of '.J ^ compensation o ffere d by the governor!t to the nl.-iintifx follow in g the purported a c q u is itio n , ^ince I h?ve ruled th;>t tho ucqyisitio*: was contrary to law the p l a i n t i f f cte jju ro re n rin s the Isv/ful owner of the s u it lan d . Dp facto however the United otof.es 0 1 Americ-j iiir-iba sr>y has been granted the s u it land and a new Civmcery woth m illio n s o f d o llo rs has been b u ilt on i t . Learned counsel for the pi-:.'in t i f f hove argued that the only r e a l i s t i c option a v a ila b le l s ^to seek r.dequrtto and i f I nny ,?ud p r opt compensation to be ra id on thc Iwuis o f v i l l i up; ^seller and \ a llin g buyer or market v a lu e _ c f t hc^ r re. or tv o th c jfo c t th=t ^ e ^ u ro v isip jic o f the Land_ A c q u isitio n ;'vct J9o7 do not av-rlv. V <2 ■M ./6 I respectfully or^ree that this is indeed nn aqviitable rejiic-Jy open to the p la in t iff ana in tandem with the previsions of :sectioi; 3 ( 1 ) ( c ) of the lend ;*ct No. V W 9 . Section 3 (1) ( prori:^:>: w 3 (I): The fundamental ’ rinciplc(G ) uf t 1>o National Land Policy wide’.* i " the- objective of this Act to pro note s:vd to which a l l P;-vsc/yXn) e x e r c jjs ir iF ,' p p y p r c r.,- t o >'. i f y o > r^JSPS'}. (g ) to pay f u l l , f a i r :jrc. prorrpt conpoi.nation to any per,son whc. e r i ht c f occupancy or rcccrnis d lonfVAtsndin/v occupation or c-uvboi.-iiry use o i land i s revoked or ctli^rwicc_ in te rfe re d witii to thejx dj>trdjT|6nt bjr the. ste le rirler t h is Act or is acquired racier the Land AcTj'aiodti-'.n Act, Provided that in ob&essinp, comQ-iOR~.ition land -icquire:! in the rr.'urior provided for in this Act, the* concept oi.' opportunity s;.vO;..l bo b-tcd on the following (i ) ferk ct v flu c of tl10 jrep 1 ortv (ii) lfrnnsport jj llo jo n ce (iii) lo s s j j r c f i t r or a c cor/,.xl ?tion (iv ) Co.s.t I-L^°F. ^ 1IP s,ub.ioct Ion cl; (v ) lcc-s. or (VM'itcl (.vij.-o^di'w’.’ro Incorrod^ to the deyelopraont o f ruhj-.ct land; and (v i) Interest at r^.rket rate w ill be c h a re d ,;J M,mnexture S isi 2f! to the plaint, a lo t lor or Intont d-~to:l 5th June, 1999 signed by Mr. Keith Wilkie for the T)fJ Jbpsrtsjont of. *-'tato and Mr. Chittaranjan Chhojranbhai Patel lor o is i Enterprise*; Ltd indie?tas t'i*i parties intent to enter into an option orrxvoiiv..;r»t ic oix-^vte 2 bind i n/' option to purchase the suit land for DC De-liars throe u illic a , Hide amount i s supported by the testimony of '-^ituo lolokola ( P.v3) n professional valuer in ibrh. P1 and to a certain extent by the ti.ufcisucmy r f D~tvr> Kahar-cte (DV/2) also a valuer in the Ministry cf Travis that the coi-.u.wroiol or irorket value of the land at the Drive in Cinena covld be ’ of.red at Tshs. 100,000,000/= per acre. The suit land os sto ted elsewhere ri'oaGuren 21,3 acres. I w ill therefore accept the mibi.usc.-ion anj hold. the- view that the commercial or market value c f the suit land bo purred at US $ 3,000,000 or it s equivalent in Tanzania sh illin g s as adequate and f a ir compensation to be paid to the ...A p l a i n t i f f by tho defen d an ts* The amount v.'ij.l a t t r a c t inheroc-t a t the cu rren t commercial r a t e as provided fo r ur/Icr s e c tio n 3 ('••) ( V i l ) of Act No. V ' ,999* There w i l l not however bo on o r ’er l:.r any s p e c i a l, p u n itiv e or g e n e ra l a s \ ravo.d Vy Lie p i n i n t i f f in th'7 circufAstances o f t h is ca se . For the fo r e g o in g rea so n s judr r*.ont i s r;r.?rt:cd to the p l a i n t i f f a s prayed and to the ex ten t sta ted in t h i c .^ud^rncnt # The pin ;n t i f f w i l l a ls o have i t s c o s t s . Order acco rdj rs^ly • S, Ih e r a JUDGE C o u rt : Judgment d e liv e r e d in chambers t h i s Ibt'a d-'iy o f O ctobor, 2.00j in the presence o f Mr. Bonmii and ?‘t , Ciudovm. Ic ^ r^ e d eoumc-1 fo r the p a r t i e s . Right o f a p p e a l i s open to the p a r b ie s * «0 j! A b S. Ihema JTDGE 16/ 10/2003 t