Dar es Salaam – A businessman has been awarded over Sh3.22 billion in compensation after the High Court ruled that his residential property was unlawfully demolished in a land dispute involving government officials in Dar es Salaam.
In a landmark decision that underscores the sanctity of land title and the consequences of unlawful government action, the High Court’s Land Division in Dar es Salaam has declared Johnsen Leonard Mahururu the lawful owner of a disputed plot in Mbezi, Kinondoni Municipality, and ordered the then Minister for Lands, the Kinondoni Municipal Council, and another defendant to pay him billions of shillings in compensation.
The ruling, delivered on December 30, 2025, brings to a head a contentious dispute that has highlighted systemic issues of double allocation within the land administration system.
The case pitted Mr Mahururu against a formidable list of defendants, including the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Land Housing and Human Settlement Development, the then Minister for Lands, Jerry William Slaa, the Commissioner for Lands, the Kinondoni Municipal Council, the Attorney General, and Naomi Raymond Kwayu, who claimed competing ownership rights.
The court found that the demolition, which occurred on February 29, 2024, was carried out without any legal notice or court order, rendering it wholly unlawful.
The disputed land
At the heart of the dispute was the ownership of Plot No. 484 (2196), Block H, Mbezi Medium Density, a valuable piece of real estate in one of Dar es Salaam’s expanding residential areas.
READ MORE: In a Landmark Ruling, High Court of Tanzania Strikes Down State-Imposed Religious Authority
The court heard that the land was first allocated to Wood Pecker Limited on March 6, 1987, via a letter of offer. This company later sold the land to Juma Rajab Kapungu on February 13, 1997, who, in turn, sold it to the plaintiff, Mr Mahururu, on January 31, 2022.
However, another party, Naomi Raymond Kwayu, also claimed ownership, citing a letter of offer dated July 12, 1987, for the same plot. This created a classic case of double allocation—a recurring problem in Tanzania’s land administration that has been fuelled by weak land management systems and corruption.
Mr Mahururu took vacant possession of the land and began development. He obtained the necessary building permits for a residential house and engaged professional architects and engineers to design a comprehensive development project.
He also applied for a change of land use to construct a hotel, though this application process was never finalised as essential documents were missing.
The unlawful demolition
On February 29, 2024, without any statutory notice to vacate or court order, the then Minister for Lands, accompanied by the Commissioner for Lands and officers from Kinondoni District Council, stormed the property with a bulldozer.
They proceeded to demolish Mr Mahururu’s residential premises and a hotel complex that was under construction, reaching its third floor. Remarkably, on the very same day, the Commissioner for Lands issued a certificate of occupancy in the name of Ms Kwayu, effectively formalising the transfer.
READ MORE: Widow’s Plight in Dar es Salaam Sparks Outrage Over Alleged Land Grabbing
In his judgment, Judge Sarwatt Kazi meticulously examined the evidence and applied established principles of land law.
On the critical issue of ownership in the context of double allocation, the judge articulated the governing principle with clarity: “The priority principle is to the effect that where two or more parties are competing over the same interest, especially in land, each claiming to have title over it, a party who acquired it earlier in point of time will be deemed to have a better or superior interest over the other.”
This principle, which is well-established in land law across East Africa, meant that Wood Pecker Limited’s earlier allocation on March 6, 1987, gave it a superior claim over Ms Kwayu’s allocation on July 12, 1987. The judge found that this superior interest was legally transmitted to Mr Mahururu through the chain of sales.
The court was particularly critical of the government’s actions. The judgment detailed how, despite a previous High Court ruling in Land Case No. 115 of 2020 that had dismissed Ms Kwayu’s claim as res judicata (judged matter), the Minister for Lands proceeded to declare her the lawful owner.
This decision was made despite the earlier court judgment and despite Mr Mahururu’s lawful occupation and development of the property.
Compliance with planning laws
The court examined whether Mr Mahururu had complied with the applicable planning and building regulations. The evidence showed that before erecting the residential structure, he had applied for and obtained a building permit from the Kinondoni Municipal Council.
The permit, issued on May 27, 2021, authorised the construction of a double-storey residential building. The court found that he had complied with the law by obtaining this permit.
However, regarding the hotel, the court found that the plaintiff failed to prove he had obtained a valid permit to construct it. The evidence showed that whilst the plaintiff applied for a change of use of the land from residential to commercial purposes, this process was never finalised, as essential documents accompanying the application were missing.
The land use remained for residential purposes only, and no permit was issued for the construction of a hotel. The hotel was therefore illegally constructed.
The court found that the demolition of the residential house was unlawful because Mr Mahururu had a valid building permit and was lawfully occupying the property. However, regarding the hotel, whilst the court found that the demolition was carried out without issuing notice before demolition began—which was procedurally flawed—the court declined to award compensation for the hotel.
Judge Kazi stated that ordering the plaintiff to be compensated for the hotel “would allow the plaintiff to benefit from his own wrong.” Since the hotel was illegally constructed without the requisite planning consent and building permit, the court refused to award compensation for its demolition.
Orders and compensation
The court’s final orders reflected a nuanced approach to the plaintiff’s claims. The defendants were held liable for specific compensation amounts as follows:
READ MORE: Smallholders In Mbarali Protest Govt Plans To Evict Them From Their Land
The court granted the plaintiff’s prayer for compensation of Sh3,180,000,000, being the value of the residential house that was unlawfully demolished. The 2nd defendant (the then Minister for Lands), the 4th defendant (Kinondoni Municipal Council), and the 6th defendant (Naomi Raymond Kwayu) were ordered to pay this amount jointly and severally.
Additionally, the court awarded Sh40,000,000 in general damages to the plaintiff for the traumatic acts committed by the defendants in demolishing his residential house. The same three defendants were ordered to pay this amount.
The court also ordered that the certificate of title wrongly issued to Ms Kwayu be nullified and that the Registrar of Titles rectify the register to register the land in Mr Mahururu’s name. An order was also issued restraining Ms Kwayu from entering the suit land or carrying on any activity thereon.
The 2nd, 4th, and 6th defendants were further ordered to pay the costs of the suit.
However, the court declined to grant several other prayers. The plaintiff’s claim for compensation of Sh300,000 per day for hotel accommodation from March 1, 2024, was dismissed because the court found that the plaintiff failed to establish that he paid this amount daily. The lease contract did not explicitly state that Sh300,000 was paid daily.
The court also declined to grant prayers for compensation relating to the hotel building itself, for loss of business, and for interest on certain decretal sums, as these were inextricably linked to the illegal hotel construction.
Significance
This judgment carries significant implications for land administration in the country. It reaffirms the principle that double allocation of land is a serious issue that courts will resolve by applying the “first in time prevails” principle.
More importantly, it sends a clear message that government officials cannot act outside the law, even when purporting to act in their official capacity.
The case also highlights the vulnerability of property owners to administrative overreach and the importance of the judiciary in protecting property rights. Mr Mahururu’s victory is a vindication of his legal rights and a warning to government agencies that unlawful actions will result in substantial liability.
The judgment also demonstrates the court’s willingness to apply equitable principles to prevent unjust enrichment. By refusing to compensate the plaintiff for the illegally constructed hotel, the court ensured that the plaintiff could not profit from his own breach of planning regulations, even though the demolition itself was procedurally flawed.
The ruling comes at a time when land disputes dominate complaints to legal aid campaigns in Tanzania, with corruption among local government leaders cited as a significant factor.
This judgment provides some reassurance that the courts are prepared to hold government officials accountable for unlawful actions and to protect the property rights of citizens, whilst also ensuring that the law is not used to reward illegal conduct.
