LAND CASE 24910 Gayo
The suit is time barred as it was filed 17 years after the cause of action arose, violating the one-year limitation period for compensation claims under the Law of Limitation Act.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- LAND CASE 24910 Gayo
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Exservia Daima Gayo & 74 Others; Defendant: The Attorney General; Defendant: Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Lands, Housing and Human Settlement
- Court
- TANZLII
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 1 January 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Land Case / Preliminary Objection Ruling
- Outcome
- dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Limitation of Actions, Compensation for Land Acquisition, Non Joinder of Parties
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Exservia Daima Gayo & 74 Others
Plaintiff
The Attorney General
Defendant
Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Lands, Housing and Human Settlement
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Preliminary Objection Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit is time barred under the Law of Limitation Act
- 2 Whether the suit is untenable for non-joinder of necessary parties
Ratio Decidendi
The suit is time barred as it was filed 17 years after the cause of action arose, violating the one-year limitation period for compensation claims under the Law of Limitation Act.
Court Disposition
dismissed
Orders
- Suit dismissed with no order as to costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
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