Legal Update – 12 November 2025
Court Rules against Trespasser’s Right to Notice or Compensation
- Declares trespassers not entitled to notice or compensation
- Failure to prove ownership rendered appellants trespassers
- Payment of levies held not to confer proprietary rights
- Appellants’ claims for damages dismissed
Background
On 13 October 2025, the Court of Appeal of Tanzania (the Court) delivered its judgement in Civil Appeal No. 666 of 2024 by dismissing an appeal by 3 businessmen (the Appellants) who had challenged the Urambo District Council’s (the Respondent or UDC) demolition of their market stalls. The Appellants claimed that they were lawful owners of the demolished stalls and contended that the previous local authority, before the formal establishment of Urambo District Council in 1978, had permitted traders to construct market stalls on the understanding that whoever built a stall would own it and could sell or transfer it. The first and second Appellants asserted that they had purchased their stalls from the original owners, while the third claimed to have inherited the same from his late father. They maintained that they had continuously paid market levies to the Council, which they viewed as acknowledgment of their ownership.
However, in 2021, the UDC classified the Appellants as tenants, demanded rent arrears of TZS 135,000 from each, and upon their refusal to pay, demolished the stalls. Alleging unlawful demolition, confiscation of goods, and violation of their property rights, the Appellants filed a suit seeking declarations of ownership and damages. The High Court dismissed their case holding that the Appellants had failed to prove ownership.
The Court’s Decision
On appeal, the Court affirmed the High Court’s decision in its entirety. It found that the Appellants had not provided any credible documentary evidence of ownership such as sale agreements, inheritance documents, or transfers of title. None of them had constructed the stalls, and their alleged vendors were not called as witnesses. Relying solely on oral assertions and payment of levies, the Appellants failed to discharge the burden of proof required under section 110 of the Evidence Act.
Importantly, the Court held that since the Appellants had defaulted on rent and continued to occupy the premises unlawfully, they became trespassers. As trespassers, they were not entitled to any notice prior to demolition or to any form of compensation for losses resulting from their unlawful occupation. In reaching this conclusion, the Court cited the principle established in Lawrence Magesa t/a Jope n Pharmacy v. Fatuma Omary & Another, where it was held that a trespasser “has no right to benefit from their wrongful act” and assumes the risk of eviction without notice.
Moreover, regarding damages to goods, the Court agreed with the lower Court that the Appellants had failed to prove the alleged loss. Their lists of destroyed goods were unsupported by receipts or ownership documents, and the Respondent’s claim that the goods had been preserved for collection went unchallenged.
In a nutshell, this judgement emphasizes that in land and tenancy disputes, documentary proof is paramount, without which, even long-standing occupants assume a risk of being declared trespassers with no entitlement to notice or compensation.
To read the Judgment click here