Negotiated for years, Court now says I’m too late

I operated a licensed bureau de change business in Dar es Salaam. One morning in early 2017, officials from government authorities came to my offices, seized large sums of money in various currencies, removed office equipment, and shut down all my branches. I was never charged with a crime. After that, I did not rush to Court. Instead, I wrote letters. I visited offices. I spoke to officials. I even involved the Ministry responsible for finance. For years, I believed the matter could be resolved administratively. I was advised to push for an out-of-court resolution to avoid litigation. It was onlyin mid 2025, after all these efforts failed, that I finally went to the High Court to seek compensation for my seized funds, lost business, and damages under the law of torts. To my shock, the case was dismissed before it was even heard. The Court said my case was ‘time-barred.’ Is it really fair that the Court refuses to listen to my case simply because I spent time trying to resolve the matter through communication with government authorities? Doesn’t justice require flexibility in such situations?I believe it is my constitutional right to be heard by the courts. Please advise me.

SM, Dar es Salaam

Thank you for sharing your experience. Many people in your position would have done exactly what you did by trying to resolve the dispute through dialogue rather than rushing to Court. However, under Tanzanian law, your case illustrates a hard but settled legal principle that time does not stop running simply because parties are communicating or negotiating.

The Court of Appeal has made it clear in several cases that even prolonged correspondence with government authorities or hopes of an administrative solution do not suspend the statutory limitation period. In your situation, the acts you complained of occurred in early 2017. From that moment, the law began counting time against you, and for suits founded on tort, the limitation period is 3 years as prescribed in the Law of Limitation Act, Cap. 89 [R. E. 2023]. By the time you filed your case in mid-2025, that period had long expired, making the Court legally powerless to hear the merits of your claim, regardless of how genuine or serious it was.

As to whether justice should allow flexibility where a person has acted patiently and in good faith, unfortunately, the Courts have consistently held that limitation of actions is not a mere technicality, but it goes to the very jurisdiction of the Court. Once time has expired, the Court cannot hear the case. This is why your argument that your constitutional right to be heard had been violated cannot succeed. Again, the Court of Appeal has repeatedly held that constitutional principles cannot be used to override clear statutory commands, particularly where Parliament has expressly fixed time limits. In other words, a Court cannot hear a case simply because every person has the constitutional right to be heard, it must first have legal authority to do so.

The lesson from your experience is painful but essential for the public. Negotiation is not legal protection. You can talk, write letters, and pursue administrative remedies, but you must always keep one eye on the legal deadline. The safer course is to file the case within time and continue negotiations in parallel. Courts have repeatedly warned that a person who delays legal action in the hope of a settlement does so at their own risk. We understand your frustration and hope you find a way around this with your lawyer by continuing with the non-litigation route.