DAR ES SALAAM: THE Court of Appeal has resolved a 20-year-old conflict involving Tanzania Electric Supply Company Limited (Tanesco) and Ukonga residents.
Tanesco acquired land from Ukonga residents to facilitate implementation of project for improving supply of electricity in Dar es Salaam, Kilimanjaro and Arusha Regions.
Justices Augustine Mwarija, Penterine Kente and Zainab Mruke ordered Tanesco to pay over 548m/- the residents at Guluka Kwalala area, Ukonga, on the outskirts of Dar es Salaam after determining an application for revision following a complaint lodged by the Attorney General (AG) to the Chief Justice.
“The execution process which, as we are reliably informed is currently held in abeyance, we order for its immediate resumption and continuation to finality in the sense that, each of the (residents) is to be immediately paid his or her compensation as per the High Court decree,” they declared in their judgment delivered in Dar es Salaam recently.
In their demand, according to their individual evaluations, the High Court had ordered Tanesco to pay the residents, who were respondents in the matter, a total sum of 945,266.400/-.
Justices of Appeal, however, reduced the amount to 548,365,950/- after holding that the trial Judge strayed into error both in law and in fact in awarding compensation to the three other residents, who did not appear to testify in support of their claims.
Before reaching into such a decision, the justices had to determine whether Tanesco had the mandate to acquire the land of the residents (respondents) and whether the compensation paid to them was adequate, fair and prompt.
Also read: Tanesco wins 10bn/- lawsuit over electric metres
During hearing of the matter, Principal State Attorney Deodatus Nyoni, assisted by Mr Ayubu Sanga and Mr Galus Lupogo, both State Attorneys, appeared for the Attorney General, the applicant, while Messrs Steven Urrasa and Elias Mkumbo, advocates appeared for Tanesco.
The residents, who were respondents in the matter, had the professional services of Mr Audax Kahendaguza Vedasto, learned Advocate.
In the case, the respondents contended that Tanesco did not conduct any valuation rather, after the residents had submitted their respective assessment forms, Tanesco offered to pay them the sums which were arrived at without any valuation in total disregard of those presented by them.
To the contrary, Tanesco submitted that they had undertaken valuation through the Government Chief Valuer and that his valuation report was the basis of the respective amounts of compensation offered to each of the respondents.
Having gone through the record of the proceeding before the trial court, the justices restated what is now a settled principle of law that, a document not properly tendered and admitted in evidence during the trial cannot be relied on to form the basis of a court’s decision.
They noted from the record that, Tanesco did not tender any valuation report which they alleged to have relied on in computing the amounts of compensation payable to the respondents.
The respondents, on the other hand, had submitted their respective claims for compensation indicating the amounts which were derived from the information they received from some land brokers on the market value based on the principle of a ‘willing-buyer-and-willingseller’.
“In the circumstances, it was the trial Judge’s reasoning, to which we entirely subscribe that, the respondents’ claims were not only considered by Tanesco, but they were also not accorded the opportunity to discuss or negotiate and reach a settlement on the payable amount of compensation,” the justices said.
From such discourse, like the trial High Court Judge, they were convinced that in the absence of any valuation report from Tanesco, the respondents were entitled to compensation in accordance with their own assessments.
As to whether the compensation was adequate, fair and prompt, the justices pointed out that the estimated market values submitted by the respondents in Land Forms No. 70 did not even in close range correspond with the amounts of compensation finally awarded.
They gave one example of Mufungo Leonard Majura, among the respondents, who had estimated his piece of land to be valued at 95m/- , had such amount drastically reduced as to eventually be paid 10,973,600/- only.
“While there is no explanation as to how Tanesco had arrived at that paltry and insignificant amount of compensation, the big difference between the two amounts can only be said to be very unfair, capricious and definitely not adequate,” the justices said.
