THE TOWN DIRECTOR v DANIEL SEKAO 1988 TLR 22 (HC)

 

THE TOWN DIRECTOR v DANIEL SEKAO 1988 TLR 22 (HC)

Court High Court of Tanzania - Mwanza

Judge Mwalusanya J

2nd February, 1988

Flynote

F Land Law - Land held under a right of occupancy lawfully acquired - Order

stopping occupier to develop his land - Reason for stop order intended application to

the President to revoke the right of occupancy - Whether such stop order is valid.

-Headnote

G Respondent was the lawful owner of a plot in Bukoba Township. He held a valid

title deed evidencing a 99 years Right of Occupancy. He had also been granted a

building permit for developing the land. The appellant however issued him with a

stop order restraining him from developing the plot in question on the ground that

the appellant H intended to apply to the President to revoke the respondent's right

of occupancy. The respondent successfully challenged the stop order in the lower

court where upon the appellant filed this appeal. At the hearing of the appeal, counsel

for the appellant produced a letter from the Ministry of Lands Headquarters signed on

behalf of the I Director of Town Planning, purporting to revoke the right of

occupancy granted to the respondent.

1988 TLR p23

MWALUSANYA J

Held: (i) That the appellant had no right to issue the stop order; A

(ii)Obiter: that even assuming the said Director of Town planning had the

power to revoke a Right of Occupancy, the revocation could not have retrospective

effect to justify the stop order. B

Case Information

Appeal dismissed with costs.

[zJDz]Judgment

Mwalusanya, J.: The respondent Daniel s/o Sekao is a lawful owner of a plot No. 25

BK 'R' along Uhuru Street in Bukoba Township. He has a right of occupancy C

L.O.S.215/76 of 18/1/1985 for 99 years as evidenced in Title deed No.003008/33 of

29/1/1987. He has a building permit of 1/2/1986 issued by the appellant; and pursuant

to that permit, the respondent began to develop his land in early 1986.

On 25/4/1987 the appellant, the Town Director of Bukoba Township, wrote a letter to

D the respondent ordering him to stop developing the plot in question on the ground

that the Town Authority intended to apply to the President to revoke the right of

occupancy in question. It is said that the Town Aurthority has earmarked the plot in

question as a E recreation ground or something to that effect. However the

respondent successfully challenged the 'stop order' in question in the lower court.

Aggrieved by the decision of the lower court, the Town Director of Bukoba Township

has now appealed to this Court.

At the hearing of the appeal Mr. Rutakolezibwa Counsel for the Town Director F

produced a letter in Court (Exh. A dated 9/1/1988) from the Ministry of Lands

headquarters, signed by one Mr. Mango on behalf of the Director of Town Planning,

purporting to revoke the right of occupancy granted to the respondent.

Even if the said Director of Town Planning had a right of revocation of a right of G

occupancy, still this would not be of any assistance to the Town Director as, on

25/4/1987 when the stop order was issued, there was no revocation yet of the right of

occupancy. So obviously the trial court was right to hold that the Town Director had

no right to issue the stop order of development of the plot owned by the respondent.

The H Town Director's order was rightly vacated.

But even then, the purported revocation of the right of occupancy by the Director of

Town Planning made on 9/1/1988 is obviously null and void, as the said officer has no

I power to make a revocation. That power of revocation of occupancy is vested in the

1988 TLR p24

A President of the United Republic of Tanzania as provided under s.10 of the Land

Ordinance Cap 113 and the President has to do so for a good cause. And the

revocation order has to be published in the Government Gazette if it has to have any

force of law. Counsel for the Town Director Mr. Ruta conceded that much, at the

hearing of the B appeal.

Therefore so far the respondent is entitled and empowered to develop the land in

question. Once the revocation is done by a lawful authority, then the development

will cease, and the respondent will be paid compensation for all the unexhausted C

improvements he has carried on the land. The ball is in the court of the Town

Director to move the President for a revocation. But it will be invidious to accede to a

prayer for a stop order of develpment of the land, when we do not know that the

revocation will ever take effect. This court will not act on conjecture and speculation.

In the event the appeal D is dismissed with costs.

Appeal dismissed.

1988 TLR p24

E