LAND CASE 24910 Gayo

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION)

AT DAR ES SALAAM LAND CASE N0.24910 OF 2024 EXSERVIA DAIMA GAYO & 74 OTHERS........................ PLAINTIFFS

VERSUS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL....................................... 1st DEFENDANT PERMANENT SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LANDS, HOUSING AND HUMAN SETTLEMENT............................................ 2nd DEFENDANT EX-PARTE RULING Date of Last Order: 04.11.2024 Date of Ruting: 20.12.2024 T,N. MWENEGOHA -J Mr. Pantaleo Urasa, learned State Attorney for the defendants in this case has raised two Preliminary Objections against this suit. That the same is time barred and that the suit is untenable for non-joinder of necessary parties. Submitting in favour of the first objection, Mr. Urasa insisted that, under, paragraphs 4, 5,6 and 7 of the Plaint, the plaintiffs claim to have not been adequately compensated and that they were not allocated lands at Kibada Kigamboni Dar es Salaam promised by the 2nd defendant to be part of compensation in 2007, 2008 and 2013 following acquisition of the Plaintiffs' property to pave way the project of enlargement of Dar es Salaam Port. That is to say, the cause of action arose in 2007. Hence the i suit at hand, offends the provisions of Item I of Part I of the Schedule to the Law of Limitation Act, Cap 89 R.E 2019, which reads as follows: - "For compensation for doing or omitting to an act alleged to be in pursuance of any written law...one year." The plaintiffs on the other hand, did not file their reply to the submissions in chief tendered by the learned

State Attorney for the defendants. In other words, one can say, they chose to remain silent or they have realized that their suit is time barred. As all I have before me is what has been submitted by the attorney for the defendants, and nothing to counter the same, I am forced to believe that what is alleged is true. Guided by the rules stated in Mukisa Biscuits Company versus Westend Distributors Limited (1969) EA 696 and Lyamuya Construction Company Limited versus Board of Registered Trustees of Young Women Christian Association of Tanzania, Civil Application No. 2 of 2010 (unreported), I find the 1st objection to have merits and sustain the same, as this suit has been preferred after the expiry of 17 years. For this reason, I see no need to discuss the 2nd objection. In the end, the suit is dismissed with no Order as to costs. T.JM MWENEGOHA

JUDGE 20/11/2024 2