By Kusekwa Kusekwa.
The High Court of Tanzania sitting in Manyara has dismissed a land ownership suit filed by two villagers against the Tanzania Electric Supply Company Limited (TANESCO), affirming the company’s legal acquisition of five acres of land earmarked for a sub-station along the 220 kV Singida-Babati power transmission line.
Presiding Judge Nenelwa Joyce Mwihambi ruled that TANESCO had lawfully acquired the land and that all genuine previous owners were duly compensated. The case was brought by Laurent Nari Tlagha and Emmanuel Shagi Amnaay, who claimed ownership of 3.5 and 1.5 acres respectively, located at Mara Village, Measkron Ward, Hanang’ District in Manyara Region.
The plaintiffs sought court declarations that they were the lawful owners of the land in question, an injunction restraining TANESCO from any interference and TSh 80 million in damages.
However, in a judgment delivered recently, the court found the plaintiffs had failed to prove legal ownership of the disputed parcels.
“This court has found that the plaintiffs failed to prove ownership of the disputed land – ownership which could form the basis for this court to grant the reliefs sought. Therefore, the reliefs prayed for will not be granted,” the judge stated.
According to the plaintiffs, the village government allocated them the land in 1978. In 1995, TANESCO – working through village leaders – requested a 10-foot-wide corridor through their farms to instal power lines, which they accepted. They claimed, however, that no compensation was paid at the time.
They further alleged that between 2017 and 2018, TANESCO entered their farms without notice or consent and expanded its operations beyond the agreed strip, extending the boundaries by an additional 30 feet on either side of the sub-station. They accused the company of destroying crops and causing them a loss of TSh 40 million each between 2017 and 2023.
TANESCO denied all the allegations, including claims of crop destruction and asserted that the plaintiffs were in fact trespassers on the land.
The court ultimately ruled in favour of TANESCO and dismissed the case with costs.
