19880804 TZHC Dar es Salaam

c:, t DAR :.:~;;:; S/i.LAll.J:;1 HISCELLUJ)~'Y:J3 CIVIL CATj3J:I: NO. 124 o:::i 1986 •00C1ooaoooe,ooo•ooeoo•oo•oooo APPLICAI·f'l1 JUDGEt.IEH1: The applic2..nts, f:letal Prod:;,.o·cs Limited, are prayin:; :i.'u:r: o:tdcrn o:f Cerliorari n.nd Prohfbition against the l'Iini::;"u8l' :for Landy Vow3ii.1t3' and Urban Dcvelop_rncnt, a,;.1d the Director of La;1d DevelopmGE°t services, llencc- :forth ref'erred as the :Hnistcr u.:c19- the Director respectjvely~ Applicants a:re rr~presented by ·t:heir Secretary, l'iiss :&3.zia Sheikh w!).ile llfro Weroma from tLe Atto·rney General I s Chr.w:ibers appeared for bc,th reGpOndcnts. '11he subject m:1t-cer of this application is plot J:Jo .. 22 Vingui1r:,uti Industrial Area, Dar es Salaam. What has undisputably transpired before this court is that this plot was registered undor the.Right of·occupancy in. the name of Gio be l1ihes (tr) Limited, h,mceforth re:fer1'Gd as t 1ie first 1 occupiers, :£'or a lea3e form of 99 years cffccti.ve fror:1 1st April 1979. Subsequently certificate ,)f ~:•Hle No. 24020 was iss...,ied in :i:a·rou.r o:i: the • first occupiers. llowcver, by a letter dated 27th Ocbber 19D3 from Ila,la District Land 0:£':fice, e.pplica,nts were offered a. right of occurancy over the same' plot :for a term of 33 yen,DJ effective:: :from lat October 1983. ConsequGntly the plot was duly regis'tercd in the name o:t ·che applicants a.11d certificate of rritie No. 30118 was issued outo Aftter the applicants ho.ct. been allocated with the plot the Director wrote to the :first occupiers inf0rming them that their right of occupancy t~nd been revoked wi tb. effect from 1st .~eptember 1984 on the gro1.md thc:1,t they l1ad bro.:1ch.ed t2,c conditions o:? the sc::.id riglr~ o2 occupcJ,.:."lCYo After interview:::; vj_ t:J. the Director the first occupiers wrote to him explo,in:i.ng- the alleged l1rcacll of C')ndi tions of right of occup:mcy. And acting ont othG direction of t;.::.0 Minister, the Director wrote bu.ck to the first occv. piers in:.::,r,a.ing them th.:tt the revocation of their rii;llt of occup:.mcy was clone by mistake and that t.l1e plot he,d been re-allocated to theme· By a copy of tl1at lotter, o.pplic.'.ll1ts were told to surrender tl1eir certi:ficc1te o:r:' ~ii tlc. Applicants refi'.sed to cor,1ply with -cl1is direction hence the Ninister decided to acquire t~'.C plot .:il1d re-allocate it to the ?irst occupiem. •• e ./2 / 11.-. .,_; 2 In her submission 1 l':ir::is ~3heil::l: argued that the ::inister 1 s decision to c1cquire the :>lot :ro::c "CliG sole pu:rpo:Je o:C ra-allocatL1g i-~ ·;;o ·;;;_._e first oecc::pi0rs was illegal. 'Under section 9 of Land Acquisiti0n Act, ,cI1e :::inister can only acquire lanc.1 :for public pU.L--pose.- '.hth re::.,p:)ct 9 I totally c.,gree with Hiss Sheikh I s arguJ11ent on the legal limitation o1 tb.c power o1 the I'hni::, ter to acq--,;ure land unc:er sec·cioa 9 o:f tho .'l.cto Ouch acqu:i.s:·Ltion C&"'l only be made for p~l1Jlic purpose. But with even g:_;:--eater respect to lie:r, tbs va.lidi ty of -;;;1c alleged accfu.isi tion is not legally :relcvan';; as :C'2.r a::: t>c det<n•;:c1ination of t:1is application is concerned. It is evide,ri; tbnt wlw::1 t;1e I,1inir-iter p-:..1.r1)or-'.;ed to acquire the plot, he was net.in,'.; ~_,;.:1cler tl10 i:1Ilv.ence of mista.:~en br~lief th,:d; applicants had acquired legal r5-C,'.i1.ts over tlte pl,J"c. ·ft1:1·;; W<:1:3 a great miscmweption o:t the 10,w. Applicants coulC1. only be offered ?...:n.,_~ accept a rig;r;; of occupru1cy over an 1,mallocc:d;ed pi0ce of ln:nd. :3-,1.t whnt h~~~)poned. in i,;l1i2 CMe is tLat applicants were o:::'fGred c:, rig1_1t of ocoup:,_,ncy over a plot whicl1. had already been a,ll9cai;ed ·co :'',l1otL01· poI•::-Jon.. It in not in dic!;u·tc tlmt with effect from 1st AI)ril 1979 first ocm;_picrs !1,).(1 n. 99 y,30,r term o:;.' right 0:Z offered a ric,;ht of occupa..l'lcy on tl1e sn.i,1e plot :for n. term of 33 yeiJ,rS eff'eci;ivc 1 1st October 1983.. l1he lcanied -3ecret2-ry for the applioaTi;s crumot ratio:rmlly dispv.:i;c tb.c fa.ct th~t wl:..en the offer of tl10 right of Qocv.p:..:.:1cy was mildO and accepted by he1· employers 9 the plot was still l0gc>.lly regi:TGercd in t;1e narJG their subsequent decision. to revoke tll0 :fi:rst occupiers 1 1'i{)1t o:f occ1.1prmcy. But tl1at revocr.i:i;ion could no·i; opa:rci.te retrospocti vuly so as to v:::-,,J.ir).2-te the purported offer of rigI,:i; occ1.1._panc;r to "~ho applic2,..nts. Tho ln.nd allocating nuthority had to do more than th2:.t; p:robn,bly· it o-,::ght ·co 11. J.ve given the n,pplico.."l'..;s a fresh offer and perl:la.prps subseque;'1tly issl1.e them with a fresh certificate of Titleo lTow turning to the ac·~ of t~1c :Uinister of ncqiJ.iring tLe plot-_, the question is wns it necessar.y· to d.o r;o in o:cder to re-alloc::i:te it ·i;o t].10 f:i.:r'Gt occupiers? I don ft t21ink so. Ass-:.uning -~hc~;i; the revoco;~ion of.' the first occi._piers r ricl.lt of occv.p::mcy is legally sustainable_, then j_ t means that tte plot bee "'110 vacc:J.1t immedi2-t.ely. If that is t)1e c::i.se_, ·1;hc Linister needed not to acquire 11 before he re-allocated it to t:1e fin::.d; occ1,1.pi0rs. l he log::cl e:f:Zect of ·l;l1e evocation was to revert the plot to the Gov·ernme:'1t free from an;;' l0gal encumbrances o 'l'he weeps taken by tho r1inistcr and the Director to acquire t;.,e plot, purportedly from the a.pplicun-~s _, were, at best, f.lEPGJ:':n:,eu:3 From wha.t had becr1 said 9 it is clear th<:,,,t at not time had ap1Jlic::mts acquired legal intereat in the plat in 1rues•ci,m.. Zence ·L-oy havo no locv.,s ~ st.:1nd: to challenge the decioiomi o:f tl1e Einis·i;er a..'1,1 t 11.e Director over the said plot. Accordingly ••o•••/3 this application is dismissed wi·l;h costs. I,1sv1~i JtJDGE. 11/8/87 For applicant g Miss Slleik...'1i f:'or Respondents g iJr. Werema 1__'.!ri·"' • ~s •• She i· ld1 r...'\-70 ::i,,o I • ll'Jtice of' appeal to co1.1-rt of Appeal Hsumi JUDGE. Certified that is a true copy of the original~