Kimbinyiko Judgement

IN THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA JUDICIARY IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA MOROGORO SUB-REGISTRY AT MOROGORO LAND CASE NO. 32 OF 2022 KIMBINYIKO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ………………………………………. PLAINTIFF VERSUS MVOMERO DISTRICT COUNCIL ………………………….…………………… 1ST DEFENDANT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ………………………………………………………. 2ND DEFENDANT JUDGMENT Date: 27 February 2025 & 28 March 2025 SINDA, J:. The Plaintiff claims against the first defendant a piece of land measuring 24 acres, located in Dakawa Ward, Mvomero District, Morogoro Region (the Disputed Land) and compensation in the amount of One Billion Tanzanian Shillings (TZS 1,000,000,000/=) arising from various transactions evidenced by agreements between the parties. 1 The brief facts of the case are that between February and October 2017, the plaintiff purchased the Disputed Land from the first defendant for investment purposes, making total payments of Tanzanian Shillings Three Hundred and Twenty-Nine Million Four Hundred and Ninety-Six Thousand Four Hundred and Forty-Two and Thirty-One cents (TZS 329,496,442.31) to the first defendant in three installments. This payment was for the purchase of the Disputed Land and for compensating villagers to vacate the same. The first defendant acknowledged these payments through a letter, confirming the plaintiff's purchase and ownership of the Disputed Land. After acquiring the Disputed Land, the plaintiff paid for architectural drawings, obtained an Environmental Impact Assessment Certificate (EIA Certificate) on 13 August 2019, and purchased fuel storage tanks. Despite fulfilling all payment obligations and receiving written acknowledgment, the first defendant did not grant the plaintiff a right of occupancy for the Disputed Land. Hence, the plaintiff prays for Judgment and Decree against the first defendant as follows: 1. Payment of Tanzanian shillings Three Hundred and Twenty-Nine Million Four Hundred and Ninety-Six Thousand Four Hundred and Forty-Two and Thirty-One Cents (TZS 329,496,442.31/=). 2 2. Payment of interest on (i) above at a commercial rate from the date of first payment to the date of Judgment. 3. Payment of interest on (i) and (ii) above at the court rate from the date of Judgment till the date of satisfaction of the decree. 4. Payment of Tanzanian Shillings Twenty Million (TZS 20,000,000/=) being payment for making a follow-up from the Plaintiff's hometown to the First Defendant's Office. 5. Payment of compensation of TZS One Billion (TZS 1,000,000,000/=) for loss generated from the first payment to the date of Judgment. 6. General Damages to be assessed by the Court. 7. Cost of this suit. 8. Any other relief this Honorable Court may deem fit to grant. The defendants filed a Written Statement of Defense (the WSD), noting partly and disputing most of the contents in the plaint. Consequently, the defendants prayed that this court dismiss the suit with costs. The matter was referred to mediation, but it ultimately failed. At the hearing of the suit, the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Mohamed Chondo, a learned 3 advocate, and the defendants were represented by Mr. Xavian Ndalahwa, Principal State Attorney, and Contida Komba, Senior State Attorney. The court then effectively convened a final pre-trial conference and framed issues for determination in a full hearing, in the presence of the parties and their counsels, to wit; i. Whether or not the Plaintiff, through TIN ARCHITECHS, drew a proposed Petrol Station and Commercial Facility and incurred costs; ii. Whether or not the Plaintiff obtained a Certificate of Environmental Impact Assessment; iii. Whether or not the Plaintiff bought fuel restoration tanks for the purpose of constructing a petrol station; iv. If the answer to the 3rd issue is in the affirmative, whether the tanks were delivered and put on the suit land; v. Whether or not the Plaintiff's investments were financed by bank loans; vi. Whether or not the first Defendant had an obligation to grant the Plaintiff a Certificate of Occupancy and/or a Title Deed over the suit land; 4 vii. To what reliefs are the parties entitled In support of their case, the plaintiff called two witnesses, Ferdinand Sebastian Mabumo (PW1) and Hamisi Saidi Chidama (PW2) and tendered exhibits. The defendants, disputing the plaintiffs’ claim, called one witness, Kitamoga Cosmas Aideed (DW1) and also tendered exhibits. To establish the plaintiff’s claims, PW1, under oath and through his witness statement, which was adopted as his testimony in chief, told the court that he is a director of Kimbinyiko International Limited. PW1 stated that the defendant failed to transfer possession of the Disputed Land, despite the plaintiff fulfilling all financial obligations. PW1 stated that the dispute originated from discussions between him, as the plaintiff’s director, and the first defendant's director from 2013 to 2016, during which PW1 requested the land for the development of a petrol station and related facilities. PW1 stated that he selected the Disputed Land and agreed that the plaintiff would compensate existing occupants or villagers through the first defendant. He asserted that a valuation of Tanzanian shillings Three Hundred and Twenty-Nine Million Four Hundred and Ninety- Six Thousand Four Hundred and Forty-Two and Thirty-One Cents (TZS 5 329,496,442.31) had been determined, and the plaintiff had paid this amount in installments to the first defendant. He testified that the first defendant acknowledged receipt and requested the balance, and assured that development would proceed upon payment completion. Subsequently, PW1 stated that the plaintiff paid the balance and initiated development, by purchasing equipment (fuel tanks and container) and delivering some to the site. Furthermore, he stated that to fund the project, the plaintiff secured a loan of Tanzanian Shillings One Billion Four Hundred Forty-Four Million Eight Hundred Fifty-Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Eighteen Shillings Ten Cents (TZS 1,444,857,718.10/=) from NBC Bank. PW1 informed the court that the first defendant then required development plans and an EIA Certificate. He asserted that the first defendant provided a letter confirming land ownership, which enabled the plaintiff to obtain the EIA Certificate. PW1 further stated that, despite the plaintiff fulfilling these requirements, approval for the development plans was delayed because land ownership verification from the Registrar of Titles had not been secured. PW1 stated that subsequently, the plaintiff received a notice from James Barnanas Ndika, claiming ownership of Plots No. 224 and 227 Block ‘A’, which are part of the Disputed Land. Additionally, he testified that Hamisi Saidi 6 Chadama, who was supposed to be compensated, claimed he had not received the payment, which casts further doubt on the first defendant's assurances that the land was free for development. He said that the plaintiff, having incurred significant expenses, issued a 90-day statutory notice to the first defendant demanding the right of occupancy, which was ignored. PW1 testified that the first defendant's breach caused significant losses, including increased loan interest, equipment depreciation, and loss of profits. He asserted that the agreement was for the plaintiff to compensate the occupants or villagers through the first defendant, who would then ensure vacant possession and transfer of title. PW1 requested that this court award damages for the losses and reimbursement of legal costs, as the agreement was both verbal and evidenced by the first defendant’s actions. To emphasize his assertion, PW1 tendered a 90-day statutory notice, a letter dated 17 June 2019 from Mvomero District Council, which confirmed the defendant's ownership of the Disputed Land, a letter dated 7 November 2017 from Mvomero District Council to the defendant for payment of compensation, a demand notice dated 30 April 2020 and EIA Certificate collectively admitted as evidence (Exhibit PE1) and a loan agreement was admitted as (Exhibit PE2). 7 During cross-examination, PW1 confirmed that he owns the Disputed Land and there is no dispute, since he was allocated it in 2021. He acknowledged claiming compensation for loss of Tanzanian Shillings One Billion (TZS 1,000,000,000/=), an amount not explicitly stated in the plaint but left to the court's assessment. He further said that he used his various certificates of title as collateral for the loan. He added that he had applied to the Mvomero District Council for a survey of the Disputed Land. PW1 stated that he applied for an EIA Certificate. He stated that he prepared drawings to develop the Disputed Land and intended to apply for a building permit. He added that he informed the first defendant that he had delivered equipment at the Disputed Land. PW1 further stated that he obtained a bank loan but did not inform the first defendant that he was applying for the loan to develop the Disputed Land. He also disclosed that he did not inform the bank of the purpose of the loan. He confirmed he did not receive a stop order from anyone to develop the Disputed Land. PW1 testified that in 2019, he received a letter from the defendant informing him that he had been allocated the Disputed Land. Subsequently, he applied to the defendant for letters of offer or a certificate of title for the Disputed, but the defendant did not respond to his letter. 8 During the Re-examination, PW1 clarified that Exhibit PE1 confirmed that the Disputed Land was allocated to him after compensation was paid. He acknowledged that there is an ongoing dispute, citing a demand notice from Barnabas Ndika, as per Exhibit PE1, and also that some people have claimed compensation. He stated that a letter from the director of the first defendant enabled him to obtain an EIA Certificate. PW1 stated that he applied for a bank loan after discussions with the first defendant. He said that he couldn't recall the exact year he approached the first defendant. He asserted that stating the loan's purpose is not required in loan applications or facility letters. The next witness for the plaintiff was Hamisi Saidi Chidama (PW2). PW2, under affirmation and through his witness statement adopted as his testimony in chief, testified that he has been a resident of the Disputed Land since 1989, and in 2016, the first defendant informed residents that the plaintiff would compensate them to vacate the Disputed Land. He stated that in 2017, other residents were compensated and vacated, except for him and his family. PW2 testified that later in 2017, the plaintiff delivered three large black fuel storage tanks to the site, where he participated in their placement. PW2 9 stated that he agreed to look after the tanks, but reminded the plaintiff that he was still not paid compensation. The plaintiff assured him that the payment had been made through the first defendant. PW2 asserted that subsequently, the plaintiff delivered a container, which he also guarded. PW2 testified that the tanks and containers are still at the Disputed Land and have deteriorated over time. PW2 stated that he continued to reside on the Disputed Land, expecting compensation. However, in 2023, the first defendant planted trees and erected a sign that read, “ENEO HILI NI MALI YA HALMASHAURI YA WILAYA YA MVOMERO.” He did not interfere because he believed that the first defendant had the authority to put up the sign. PW2 stated further that in February 2024, he was finally compensated TZS 8,160,000/= by the first defendant, though he had been supposed to be paid since 2017. PW2 further stated that he believes the Disputed Land belongs to the plaintiff who had placed his property on it. PW2 testified that he is now willing to vacate the premises because he has finally been compensated. He prayed that this court deliver justice for the plaintiff, acknowledging the company's investment efforts and the deterioration of their property. During cross-examination PW2 testified that he resides at the Disputed Land and guards the plaintiff's equipment. He confirmed that he has no claims 10 against the government and he is familiar with the land's demarcation, having been involved in its survey. During re-examination, PW2 testified that his claims against the first defendant were settled in February of this year. He stated that he could not vacate the Disputed Land before being compensated. He also affirmed that, before being compensated, he would not have permitted the Plaintiff to construct fuel tanks on the site. He believes other families were not involved in the survey because they had already been compensated and vacated the area. He further clarified that the environmental officers erected a placard that remains present. This marked the end of the plaintiff's case, and the same was marked closed. For the defence side, a single witness DW1 testified, his witness statement was adopted as his testimony in chief, and he informed the court that he was a Principal Officer of the first defendant, serving as an Authorized Land Officer until December 2023, before being transferred to the Office of the Assistant Land Commissioner for Morogoro. DW1 testified that in or about July 2017, the plaintiff was approached by the first defendant with a view to investing within its geographical jurisdiction, specifically in the area near its offices along Dodoma Road. He stated that 11 the earmarked Disputed Land was occupied by traditional landowners who required compensation prior to the plaintiff's occupation. DW1 further testified that the plaintiff requested the first defendant to conduct a valuation and submit it to facilitate payment. He stated that the first defendant conducted a valuation, which resulted in an amount of TZS 329,496,442.31 for the Disputed Land. He said the plaintiff was notified of this amount and the need for a deposit on 7 November 2017. To evidence the same, a letter of valuation was tendered by DW1 in the court as evidence and admitted and marked as exhibit DE1. DW1 stated that the plaintiff deposited the said amount into the first defendant's account, and the first defendant paid the traditional occupiers. He testified that upon receiving the compensation, the traditional landowners vacated the Disputed Land, and the first defendant handed over the Disputed Land to the plaintiff on 17 June 2019. The allocation letter was tendered and admitted in evidence and marked as exhibit DE2. DW1 asserted that upon handing over the Disputed Land to the plaintiff, the first defendant had no further obligation to the plaintiff. He stated that upon receiving the Disputed Land, the Plaintiff commenced development by delivering tanks to the Disputed Land. 12 DW1 further explained that land ownership in Tanzania is divided into two categories un-surveyed and granted right ownership, both with equal status. He outlined the steps for converting un-surveyed land to granted right ownership. DW1 stated that upon acquiring the granted right of occupancy, development procedures are outlined in the certificate of title and generally include a building permit obtained through a formal application to the relevant authority, accompanied by building drawings and any other required legal documents, and issued upon payment of prescribed fees. DW1 testified that the plaintiff in this matter had not applied for a grant of the right of occupancy, therefore, the preceding steps are essential and must be fulfilled. He stated that consequently, the first defendant cannot be held liable by the plaintiff for any alleged failure to develop the Dispute Land. During cross-examination, DW1 testified that he began working at Mvomero District Council in 2001. He acknowledged that the plaintiff paid compensation to the first defendant to compensate the residents of the Disputed Land that was subsequently vacated. He also acknowledged that the plaintiff commenced development by delivering fuel tanks to the Disputed Land. 13 DW1 stated that while he understood all residents were to be compensated, he was unaware of the specific circumstances surrounding PW2, who was reportedly paid in 2024 instead of 2017, as he had left the Mvomero District Council in 2023. Consequently, he had no personal knowledge of events that occurred in 2024. DW1 confirmed that the Disputed Land belonged to the plaintiff following its handover by the first defendant, as evidenced by Exhibit DE2 which indicated the Disputed Land had been surveyed, and that the Director of Surveying and Mapping of the Ministry of Ministry of Lands, Housing and Human Settlements Development (the Ministry of Lands) was required to approve the surveyed area's map. However, he stated he did not know if the approval process had been completed. He acknowledged that Exhibit DE2 was authorised by the Executive Director of the first defendant. DW1 asserted that, although the plaintiff owned the Disputed Land, which had been surveyed, they were not required to apply for an environmental permit because the plaintiff had not yet obtained a title deed. He further stated that the plaintiff was not liable for any disputes arising on the Disputed Land. He confirmed knowing that James Barnabas Ndika resided where the plaintiff had placed the fuel tanks, but did not consider it a dispute. 14 DW1 acknowledged that Hamis Said Chidama was paid compensation in 2024 instead of 2017. He confirmed that the first defendant erected a sign claiming the Disputed Land as its property. He clarified that the Greenbelt project land was separate from the plaintiff's land. He stated that numerous meetings were held regarding the Disputed Land, and that the Regional Commissioner made political statements claiming the Disputed Land is part of the Greenbelt project, although no written documents were provided. DW1 admitted he had not provided proof of the number of people compensated by the first defendant and did not know if some people were unpaid. He also confirmed that the fuel tanks were in poor condition, as if they had been abandoned. During re-examination, DW1 testified that he had reviewed Exhibit P1, which was addressed to the Plaintiff. He clarified that the first defendant was not addressed regarding any dispute over the Disputed Land. Regarding Exhibit DE2, DW1 stated that he had indicated the Disputed Land was not fully owned by the plaintiff because the plaintiff had not completed the process to obtain a certificate of title. He explained further that the plaintiff was required to submit a formal application through Land Form No. 19, as stipulated under the Land Act. DW1 acknowledged that he had not 15 presented any evidence in court to substantiate his claims regarding the political statements. Having considered the pleadings, witness statements, oral testimonies of the parties’ witnesses, and the documentary exhibits tendered, I now proceed to consider the matter under the seven issues as framed and agreed upon by the parties and the evidence on record. To begin with, I will address the sixth issue on whether the first defendant had an obligation to grant the plaintiff a Certificate of Occupancy and/or a Title Deed over the Disputed Land. This Court refrains from discussing this issue, although it was further discussed in the parties' submissions, because this Court had already entered a Judgment on admission on 1 July 2024, which stated: "Accordingly, pursuant to the provisions of Order XII Rule 4 of the CPC, Judgment is hereby entered for the plaintiff and against the first Defendant as follows: 1. That the Plaintiff is declared the lawful owner of a piece of land located at Dakawa Ward, Mvomero District, and the 1st Defendant is ordered to grant to the Plaintiff the Right of Occupancy according to the law." 16 After the judgment on admission, the issue of the first defendant's failure to grant the plaintiff the right of occupancy, as described in paragraph 10 of the 'Amended Plaint,' naturally lacked substance. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of TZS 329,496,442.31 lacks merit, as the court has already decided on the matter and ordered the first defendant to grant the plaintiff the right of occupancy in accordance with the law. Regarding the first issue of whether the plaintiff, through TIN ARCHITECHS, drew a proposed petrol station and commercial facility and incurred costs. PW1 adduced that the plaintiff engaged TIN ARCHITECTS and paid it for architectural drawings. This testimony remained largely unchallenged by the first defendant during cross-examination, thereby establishing that the plaintiff incurred costs for architectural drawings. Although the evidence was unchallenged, it notably lacks specific details regarding the precise amount of expenses incurred by the plaintiff in relation to the architectural drawings. The second issue was whether the plaintiff had obtained an EIA Certificate. It was evidenced through PW1 that the plaintiff obtained an EIA Certificate on 13 August 2019, facilitated by a letter from the first defendant confirming land allocation and ownership. The said certificate was admitted by the court as evidence and marked collectively with other exhibits as PE1. Therefore, I 17 answer this issue in the affirmative, stating that the plaintiff obtained an EIA certificate. Regarding the third and fourth issues, whether the plaintiff purchased fuel restoration tanks for the purpose of constructing a petrol station and whether they were delivered and placed on the Disputed Land. The plaintiff’s witness, PW1, testified that the plaintiff purchased fuel storage tanks. This testimony was corroborated by PW2, a resident of the Disputed Land, who confirmed the delivery of these tanks to the Disputed Land. Furthermore, DW1, during cross-examination, acknowledged the presence of the fuel tanks on the Disputed Land in a deteriorated state, which suggested that they had been abandoned. Consequently, I affirmatively agree that the fuel storage tanks were indeed delivered and placed on the Disputed Land. Regarding the fifth issue, whether or not the plaintiff's investments were financed by bank loans. PW1 tendered Exhibit PE2, a loan agreement between the plaintiff and National Bank of Commerce Limited (NBC Bank), to demonstrate that the plaintiff secured a loan of Tanzanian Shillings One Billion Four Hundred Forty Four Eight Hundred Fifty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Eighteen Shillings Ten Cents (TZS 1,444,857,718.10) to purchase the Disputed Land, pay compensation, and make investments on the 18 Disputed Land. I have reviewed Exhibit PE2 on the second page, which states the purpose of the loan, and for further reference, I would like to reproduce its paragraph: "The purpose of this term loan facility is to restructure the existing facilities granted by the Bank to the Borrower under the Facility Letters dated 11th February 2016, 20th August 2015, 27th October 2015, and 03rd October 2014. The overdraft and other term loan limits will be cancelled upon acceptance of this facility letter by the Borrower." The above clause does not state that the purpose of the loan is to purchase the Disputed Land or an investment in the Disputed Land. Furthermore, the plaintiff did not provide this court with copies of the facility letters dated 11 February 2016, 20 August 2015, 27 October 2015, and 3 October 2014, to confirm whether the loan was for the construction of a petrol station on the Disputed Land. PW1 also stated, during cross-examination, that he had obtained a bank loan for the development of the Disputed Land but did not inform the first defendant that he was applying for the loan. He also stated that he did not notify the bank of the loan's purpose, as it was not necessary to do so. Therefore, this Court finds that it is quite possible the plaintiff 19 obtained the loan as stated in the loan agreement from NBC Bank, but for other purposes and not specifically for investment in the Disputed Land. Furthermore, the plaintiff also failed to bring a bank officer from NBC Bank before the court to confirm that the facilities mentioned in the loan agreement were for investment in the Disputed Land. Consequently, I find that the plaintiff has not adequately established his claim. Regarding the last issue as to the reliefs to which the parties are entitled. In light of the judgment on admission previously entered by this Court regarding the grant of the right of occupancy, I will only discuss the remaining reliefs sought by the plaintiff, which include Tanzanian Shillings Twenty Million (TZS 20,000,000/=) as costs for follow-up and Tanzanian Shillings One Billion (TZS 1,000,000,000/=) as compensation for loss, subject to the court's discretion. PW1 testified that the plaintiff incurred costs for follow-ups during the investment process and suffered losses due to loan interest and equipment depreciation, occasioned by the first defendant’s delay in issuing a grant of occupancy. I have previously discussed the loan agreement, in which the plaintiff failed to substantiate his claim; therefore, I will refrain from discussing reliefs 20 regarding the loan interest. I will focus on the loss suffered due to the investment in the Disputed Land and depreciation and equipment occasioned by the first defendant’s delay in issuing a right of occupancy. In my opinion, the plaintiff contributed to the loss he suffered by obtaining an EIA Certificate, preparing drawings for the proposed petrol station and commercial facility through TIN ARCHITECHS, procuring the fuel restoration tanks, and delivering them to the Disputed Land, despite knowing that the Disputed Land had only been surveyed and the process to obtain the title deed has not been completed by the first Defendant and the Ministry of Lands. It was clear from DW1 that, after the plaintiff paid compensation, the first defendant prepared a detailed planning scheme amendment for Dakawa Sokoine Layout Plan No. 84/02/0304/A dated 23 May 2029 which was submitted to the Director of Surveying and Mapping at the Ministry of Lands for approval, which was still pending. This was also clearly stated in Exhibit PE1, the allocation letter dated 23 May 2019. DW1, in his witness statement, also elaborated on the procedures to be followed for obtaining a grant of right of occupancy after the plaintiff had paid compensation and the Disputed Land had been surveyed. However, the 21 plaintiff delivered the fuel restoration tanks to commence development of the Disputed Land while knowing that the Disputed Land had only been surveyed and that the procedures for obtaining a certificate of title or a building permit had not been completed. PW1 stated that after being allocated the Disputed Land by the first defendant, the plaintiff applied to the first defendant for letters of offer or a certificate of title for the Disputed Land, but the first defendant did not respond to his letter. However, this court has not been provided with any copies of the letters or formal application to the first defendant or the Ministry of Lands as required by law to demonstrate that the plaintiff applied for the right of occupancy. Section 25 of the Land Act, Cap 113 R.E. 2019 (the Land Act), clearly provides that: “Procedure for application for right of occupancy (1) An application for a right of occupancy shall be– (a) submitted on a prescribed form and accompanied by a photograph; (b) accompanied by the prescribed fee; (c) signed by the applicant or a duly authorised representative or agent of the applicant; (d) sent or delivered to the Commissioner or an authorised officer; (e) contain or be accompanied by any information which may be prescribed or which the Commissioner may in writing require the applicant to supply; (f) accompanied by a declaration in the prescribed form of all rights and interests in land in Tanzania which the applicant has at the time of the application; 22 (g) where any law requires the consent of any local authority or other body before an application for a right of occupancy may be submitted to the Commissioner, accompanied by a document of consent, signed by the duly authorised officer of that local authority or other body; (h) if made by a non-citizen or foreign company, accompanied by a Certificate of Approval granted by the Tanzania Investment Centre under the Tanzania Investment Act Cap. 38* and any other documentation which may be prescribed by that Act or any other law; (i) If an application for a right of occupancy or a derivative right, which is made by a non-citizen or a foreign company, is for residential purposes, the use of such land shall be secondary or ancillary to the investment approved under the Tanzania Investment Act Cap. 38*. (2) The Commissioner may require an applicant to submit information relevant to that application, additional to that already submitted with the application, and shall not be obliged to determine the application until that additional information has been submitted or a satisfactory explanation provided as to why it is not practical or possible to submit that additional information. (3) Where an application is for a right of occupancy in reserved land, the Commissioner shall refer that application to the official or the public body having jurisdiction over that reserved land and shall take account of any representations that such official or such public body shall make on that application. (4) Where an application is for a right of occupancy the development of which in accordance with the application will have, in the opinion of the Commissioner, a substantial effect on the activities and services provided by the local authority in the area where the land the subject of the right of occupancy is situate, the Commissioner shall refer that application to that local authority and shall take account of any representations made by that local authority on that application. 23 (5) Any official to whom or public body or local authority to which an application is referred under subsection (3) or (4) may make any such representations on that application within twenty days of the receipt of that application. (6) The Commissioner shall maintain a register of applications in the prescribed form which shall be available to inspection by the members of the public at reasonable times during office hours.” Furthermore, during cross-examination, PW1 confirmed that he had not received a stop order from the first defendant to develop the Disputed Land, so despite the delay in receiving the right of occupancy, which means that if he had wanted to, he would have proceeded with the investment on the Disputed Land without obtaining a certificate of occupancy. Therefore, in my opinion, the plaintiff contributed to the loss he suffered by making the investments while knowing that the Disputed Land had no certificate of title. Lastly, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff failed to explain the likely incurred costs for follow-ups from the plaintiff’s resident to the first defendant's office, as these claims require strict proof, rather than mere assertions. It is a well- established principle of law that a claim for compensation of a specific amount must be substantiated by evidence of actual losses. This principle is articulated in the case of Oscar Karsan Kanji vs. Abdallah Hassan (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2020) [2024] TZCA 161 (6 March 2024), Tanzlii at 24 page 23 of the judgment, the Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Arusha stated that; “It is an elementary principle of law, of course founded upon prudence, that, to succeed, special damages must be specially pleaded and strictly proved.” Based on the above-settled position, it is my considered opinion that the plaintiff has not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the costs of TZS 20,000,000/=) sought for loss. In the event of and for the avoidance of doubt, this suit has no merit except for the judgment on admission, which is on record. Each party shall bear its own costs. It is so ordered. Right to appeal is explained. DATED at MOROGORO on this 28 Day of March 2025. A. A. SINDA JUDGE 28 March 2025 25