Alexander Rutakinikwa John vs Dodoma City Council and Another (Civil Case No. 21012 of 2024) [2026] TZHC 2623 (25 May 2026)

1 | P a g e IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA DODOMA SUB REGISTRY AT DODOMA CIVIL CASE NO. 21012 OF 2024 BETWEEN ALEXANDER RUTAKINIKWA JOHN …………………………..PLAINTIFF VERSUS DODOMA CITY COUNCIL ………..………………………1 ST DEFENDANT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ………………………………2 ND DEFENDANT JUDGMENT Date of last order: 22/04/ 2026 Date of Judgment: 25/05/ 2026 LONGOPA, J.: On 14 August 2024, the Plaintiff instituted this civil suit against the Defendants for declaration that the 1st Defendant has disrupted the Plaintiff’s project of extracting fill materials (kifusi) from the Plaintiff’s 2 | P a g e property by unilaterally and unjustifiably canceling his licence, a declaration that the 1st Defendant has disrupted the Plaintiff’s investment plan over his property, a claim for loss of business, loss of investment and general damages. According to the Plaint, the Plaintiff is a lawful owner of land measuring 44,740 square metres located at Msangalale Mashariki, Dodoma Makulu Ward, Dodoma City Council whereby the Plaintiff decided to develop by levelling the land surface by extracting fill materials / rubble (kifusi) for construction activities and to achieve that, he approached all relevant authorities to obtain permits as demonstrated including a Broker’s Licence No. BL/027/DOM/2023/2024 issued by Mining Commission, permit to extract rubble vide a letter Ref. No. HJD/M.30/1/60 dated 23rd November 2023 and obtained recommendations from the Ward Development Committee (WDC) of Dodoma Makulu Ward through an Extra Ordinary Meeting held on 8th November, 2023. A copy Minutes of the WDC in a meeting held of 8th November 2023 as well as having engaged prepared an Environmental Protection Plan for the Proposed Site Leveling 3 | P a g e Project at Msangalale Mashariki ‘Mtaa’, Dodoma Makulu Ward, Dodoma City Council in Dodoma Region which formed basis for issuance of a permit. According to the Plaint, the Plaintiff started executing the Project but to his surprise, three days after commencement of operations, on 8th December, 2023, vide the 1 st Defendant’s letter Ref. No. HJD/F.30/4/50, the 1st Defendant, without consultation and further without any justifiable cause unilaterally ordered the project to stop. According to the Plaintiff the 1 st Defendant’s act was activated by malice and sole intention of disrupting his business. Plaintiff added that reason stated by the 1 st Defendant’s order was environment degradation was unjustified because the Plaintiff was adhering to the Environmental Protection Plan prepared for the Project and there were ongoing extraction of rubble (kifusi) in the close neighborhood without the intervention of the 1 st Defendant and that Plaintiff was not consulted or heard before the 1 st Defendant cancelled his permit. 4 | P a g e It was further averment of the Plaintiff that Plaintiff’s project disrupted by the 1 st Defendant’s acts has a value in excess of Tanzania Shillings One Billion (TZS 1,000,000,000/=). As a result, the Plaintiff prayed for Judgment and Decree against the Defendants on the following orders: (a) A declaration that the 1 st Defendant has unlawfully disrupted the Plaintiff’s project of extracting fill materials (kifusi) from his property located at Msangalale Mashariki, Dodoma Makulu Ward, Dodoma City Council by unilaterally canceling his licence without any just cause. (b) A declaration that the 1 st Defendant has disrupted the Plaintiff’s investment plan of developing his land located at Msangalale Mashariki, Dodoma Makulu Ward, Dodoma City Council. (c) An order that Defendants pay to the Plaintiff an amount of not less than Tanzania Shillings One Million per day from 8th December, 2023 until the date of Judgment being loss of business income from sale of fill material (kifusi) extracted from the Plaintiff’s property. (d) An order for payment of general damages for all inconveniences caused to the Plaintiff for loss of 5 | P a g e business and disruption of investment plan as may be assessed by the Court. (e) A permanent injunction restraining the 1st Defendant, his agents, employees, assigns or successor in title from interfering with the Plaintiff in the carrying out his project save for material deviation from the Environmental Protection Plan for the Proposed Site Leveling of the Plaintiff’s property. (f) That the Defendant pay interests on the amount awarded in (c) and (d) above at Court rate from the date of the date of Judgment until the sum is paid in full. (g) Costs of this suit be borne by the Defendants (h) That the Court be pleased to grant and other relief(s) it may deem fit and just to grant The Defendants refuted any wrong doing and reiterated that the stoppage of the activities in the land in question was violation of the permit’s conditions There were three issues that were drafted for determination of the suit before this Court. These framed issues are that: 6 | P a g e 1. Whether the 1 st Defendant disrupted the Plaintiff’s business of extracting fill matters (kifusi) and levelling his land; 2. Whether the 1 st Defendant had justifiable reasons to cancel the permit to extract fill matters(kifusi) issued to the Plaintiff?; and 3. What are the reliefs are the parties entitled thereto? In course of hearing of the suit, the Plaintiff enjoyed the legal services of Mr. Respicious Didace, learned advocate and Omary Ngatanda, learned State Attorney for the Defendants. The parties called a total of five witnesses and the Defendants called a single witness. The summary of evidence is as follows: PW 1 was one Eladi Focus Tarimo stated that he an environmental expert who was engaged by Mr. Alexander Rutakinikwa John since 2023 to prepare Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) for residential area where levelling of the plot was to be conduct while ensuring environmental protection is maintained. PW 1 stated to have prepared the EPP Report in 7 | P a g e collaboration with Salvatory John as an Environmental expert and Glory Charles who was Environmental Scientist and Health and Safety Expert. According to PW 1, the EPP was prepared and submitted to Dodoma City Council for permit and the Mining Commission for the Licence to extract the rubble (fill/ kifusi). The Environmental Protection Plan for the Proposed Site Levelling Project at Msangalale Mashariki “Mtaa” Dodoma Makulu Ward in Dodoma City Council in Dodoma Region 17 th November 2023 was admitted as Exhibit PE. 1. It was PE 1’s testimony that preparation of EPP Report involved site visit involving the Environmental Experts from Dodoma City Council, holding of the Meetings with Mtaa residents, leaders of the local government at Mtaa level and Ward Level at Dodoma Makulu Ward and the name of the Mtaa is Msangalale Mashariki. DW 1 further noted that minutes of those meetings were recorded forming part of the Report that was submitted to Dodoma City Council and the Mining Commission to 8 | P a g e validate participation of leadership and residents of the area where EPP applies as seen on page 34 of the Report. PW 1 averred that preparation of Exhibit PE 1 was aimed to facilitate the levelling the site prior to construction of the residential buildings as the area required the EPP due to nature of the area. The levelling involves removing or extracting heavy materials that would be shifted to another area. The fill/ rubble (kifusi) was to be extracted as Plaintiff obtained the broker mining licence from the Mining Commission as found on page 42 of the Report. Upon submission of the Report, the 1 st Defendant issued a permit to allow levelling to be done. It was PW 1’s evidence that levelling commenced but Dodoma City Council had stopped the activities after three days of operation. The reasons were stated to be the environmental degradation/ pollution that was being caused by the activities in question. It was PW 1 ’s evidence that on arrival at the site he did not find any environmental degradation as the 9 | P a g e Plaintiff did not extract more than five meters deep as permitted by authorities. PW 1 stated that at the site there were no activities of drilling that were being conducted at the site other than normal levelling as the EPP Report had only allowed levelling and the stoppage has made the site remain unleveled. In cross-examination, PW 1 admitted to have not tendered any certificate from the Occupational Safety and Health Authority (OSHA) nor any evidence that he once performed EPP or related assignments. Also, PW 1 noted that in the EPP Report there was no certificate with his name as the person who did conduct EPP. PW 1 added that the EPP was for levelling of the site, the Mining Licence is silent on depth of the levelling but the permit from Dodoma City Council is one stating about the depth. PW 1 added that he saw the permit from Dodoma City Council but nothing indicates about the depth of the levelling of the site. PW 1 had not stated the measurement tools/ facilities 10 | P a g e he used to measure that levelling had not exceeded five meters but it was estimated. PW 1 admitted to have not tendered any evidence whatsoever to prove that degradation/pollution did not happen. Moreover, PW 1 reiterated that he was not registered EIA Expert and that though he was there when operations to level commenced yet he could not recall the date when the levelling of the site commenced. PW 1 added that he saw a letter stopping levelling due to environmental degradation/ pollution from Dodoma City Council. PW 1 noted that EPP Report was for protection of environmental to water sources, degradation or pollution to residents and not affect the passage as there is a road. PW 1 admitted that monitoring and audit of EPP was a function of the Dodoma City Council. It was PW 1’s evidence that he was engaged by the Plaintiff separately as a consultant to ensure implementation and that there was no drilling in that plot of the land. PW 1 admitted that the permit required the Plaintiff to ensure environmental management through restoration by 11 | P a g e planting the trees. The permit was for extraction of the fill matter/ rubble and then restore the area by planting trees only. At this juncture, PW 1 noted that the permit was issued on 23/11/ 2023 while operation commenced on 27/11/ 2023 but the stoppage of activities letter was issued on 03/ 12/ 2023. In re-examination, PW 1 noted that object of EPP Report to ensure there is environmental protection and safety of the community sorrounding the area where the project was to be implemented. PW 1 refuted on existence of drilling as no holes were created and that EPP Report involved all stakeholders including the Environmental Experts from Dodoma City Council. PW 1 added that the consultant is the one who puts the certificate. The registered expert was one Salvatory John. The result of the work the experts were doing resulted into the preparation of the EPP Report. PW 2 was Gerald Juma Chalo stated that he was a ten-cell leader at the area where the land is situated in Njedengwa East as the Plaintiff 12 | P a g e resides there. PW 2 stated to had introduced the Plaintiff to Mtaa/ Street Leadership in 2017 when the Plaintiff informed about owning that land. PW 2 stated that he saw some tractors/ machineries that were levelling the land but after three days he was informed about the stop order to level the land in question from Dodoma City Council. PW 2 noted to have seen the environmental degradation though he was not expert to ascertain that aspect. He added that the experts are the one to explicitly say on existence or otherwise of the pollution/degradation. In cross examination, PW 2 stated that as a ten-cell leader at Njedengwa East, saw the Plaintiff extracting the fill as the land was being levelled which involved digging the fill. Another Plaintiff ‘s witness was Daudi Chawala Chakulanga who testified as PW 3. PW 3 stated that he knows Alexander Rutakinikwa John who was a resident in Msangalale East since 2019 and that in 2023 the Plaintiff submitted documents from the Mining Commission and Dodoma 13 | P a g e City Council allowing levelling of the land for construction/ erecting buildings at that area. The documents were permit and licences. It was PW 3’s testimony that a s a Chairman of the Mtaa/ Street, there was conducted Mtaa Council meeting to approve the project of levelling whereas the Plaintiff promised to construct an office for Mtaa, rehabilitate the road for the Msangalale East Street/ Mtaa as part of Social Responsibility to residents as he was conducting a project. PW 3 noted that upon several days of implementing the project, the Plaintiff received a letter from Dodoma City Council estopping the Plaintiff from continuing with the project to level the land. On lamentation by Mr. Alexander Rutakinikwa, the Mtaa leadership informed the Plaintiff to visit Dodoma City Council for resolution of the matter. PW 3 noted that he saw permit and licence to operate the project but PW 1 explicitly noted that he was not aware of manner and process of obtaining the documents. It was PW 3 testimony that at the site there were excavators that was taking the fill/ kifusi and the personnel from 14 | P a g e Dodoma City Council were there with Point on Sale (POS) devices to collect levies. According to PW 3, the activities operated for about three days before stoppage on grounds of environmental pollution/ degradation though personally PW 3 did not environmental degradation nor heard any complaint except dust from the road that affected the houses along the road. PW 3 reiterated that having noted dusts affecting houses from the lorries ferrying the fill, the Plaintiff was informed, brought water boozer to prevent dusts which calmed the situation. According to PW 3, the stop order of the project affected the residents as there was stoppage of the construction of the Mtaa Office and rehabilitation of roads along that street thus residents were not very much pleased as those projects could not take off despite the same being announced at Mtaa General Assembly. In cross-examination, PW 3 reiterated that he brought no evidence to identify him as Mtaa Chairman from 2019 to 2024. PW 3 noted that he 15 | P a g e never brought the permits and licences that Plaintiff to Mtaa office nor records of the Minutes and other meetings regarding the implementation of the project and the corporate social responsibility of the investor. PW 3 admitted that he was not aware of the person who signed the stoppage letter and did not bring it to court. In respect of the levelling, PW 3 stated that there was levelling and drilling but he was not an expert to confirm whether it was levelling or drilling. He added that was Dodoma City Council who issued the permit, inspected/ audited the implementation but he cannot ascertain that they found him violated the permitted actions. PW 3 added that Mtaa Government has not stopped any person who is implementing a project correctly and that generally the Government cannot stop a person who operates activities in accordance with the law and procedure who was not in violation of the law. PW3 noted that he was not an environmental expert. In re-examination, PW 3 stated that he was not an expert in environmental management but he did not see environmental degradation. 16 | P a g e PW 4 was Amosi Sanda stated to have known the Plaintiff since 2022 as he sold the Plaintiff a piece of land in that area and that Plaintiff bought other neighbouring lands neighbouring the plot he sold to the Plaintiff. PW 4 noted that he saw the levelling land but after few days there was stoppage of the same. According to PW 4, there was no degradation of environment at that area as the it is a hill-land that should be levelled to remove gorge/canyon so that one could proceed with the construction in that site. In re-examination, PW 4 admitted to have never tendered any documentations on description of land in terms of size, neighborhoods or purchase price. The evidence of PW 4 added that Plaintiff commenced levelling after he purchased land but PW 4 was not sure if there were any permits from the government except seeing the levelling that land. PW 2 admitted that he was not environment expert and he knows nothing about environmental degradation. The last witness for Plaintiff was PW 5 was Alexander Rutakinikwa John who testified that dispute arose out of stoppage by the Dodoma City 17 | P a g e Council on the levelling of land belonging to him located at Msangalale Mashariki in Makulu Ward in Dodoma thus prevented his investment. PW 5 stated that he owns land having purchased it from neighbours for developing by constructing the buildings but required levelling as it is a hilly land. PW 5 added to have obtained broker mining licence from Resident Mines Office for Dodoma to request for extracting the fill materials. At this juncture, a Broker Licence No BL/027/DOM/2023/2024 dated 30 th October 2023 was admitted as Exhibit PE 2. PW 5 stated to have applied for the permit from the Dodoma City Council whereby Dodoma City Council granted the permit as land in question was hilly thus levelling was allowed while considering environmental protection. PW 5 reiterated to engaged Salvatory Tarimo as an Environmental Expert prepare Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) whereby stakeholders’ meetings were conducted at Mtaa level Residents and Ward Officials for Makulu Ward. The EPP Report which is Exhibit PE 1 was submitted to Dodoma City Council who upon being satisfied permitted 18 | P a g e the extraction of the gravel/ fill. It was PW 5 ’s testimony that contains aspects of environmental protection during the investment/ extractions. It included presence of broker’s licence, the records of meetings of the Mtaa residents, meetings’ records from the Ward Officials, ownership of the land documents, the correspondences between the Mining Commission and the Dodoma City Council and documents relating to qualification and practice by the consultant. Exhibit PE 1 was submitted to Dodoma City Council and the Regional Office of the Mining Commission. It was the satisfaction by Dodoma City Council that permitted the activities to be carried on. PW 5 stated that extraction of fill commenced on November 2023 but within five days of operation, Dodoma City Council stopped the extraction of the fill vide a letter on account of environmental destruction/ pollution. A letter dated 8 th December 2023 from Dodoma City Council to Alexander Ruttakinikwa John entitled: Kusitisha Kibali cha Kuchimba Kifusi cha tarehe 23/11/ 2023 kwenye eneo lenye leseni Na. BL/ 027/DOM iliyopo Kata ya 19 | P a g e Dodoma Makulu Mtaa wa Msangalale Mashariki was admitted as Exhibit PE 3 . It was PW 5 evidence that upon receipt of the letter, Plaintiff waited for Dodoma City Council to call him for discussion but nothing came up. It was PW 5 that he thus consulted the learned advocate thus a Ninety days’ notice was prepared and served to the Defendants. It was further evidence of PW 5 that the letter stopping the activities at the site was communicated to various persons including the Regional Mining officer, District Commissioner, Police Station and the Ward Office. PW 5 noted that he got a letter from the Resident Mines Office for Dodoma lamenting on non-involvement in stoppage of the activities. At this juncture, a letter dated 20 th December 2023 from Mining Commission to Dodoma City Council was tendered and admitted as Exhibit PE 4 . PW 5 added that the consultant for EPP visited Mtaa residents and Ward Officials on the comments regarding the project and the meetings records indicate that aspect thus tendered a Letter and Minutes of the 20 | P a g e Meeting before the Ward Executive Officer date 9 th November 2023 which were Exhibit PE 5 collectively. It was testified by PW 5 that the reason stated in the letter stopping the extraction of the fill materials was not satisfactory at all as none of the persons involved in operation of the project from Mining Commission and Dodoma City Council stated anything on environment being polluted or destroyed. PW 5 stated that stoppage of activities has caused the Plaintiff a lot of inconveniences as he had secured investment capital from the bank, he had agreements with the persons who were constructing roads which were terminated and the Plaintiff had to compensate them. It was PW 5 that stoppage of extracting the fill materials shuttered all his dreams to have income and profits that could be realised. PW 5 added that had arrangement with Mining Commission to collect the payments on the fill materials he was extracting. In fact, PW 5 reiterated to that he had to pay 21 | P a g e the loans using other means while no production at the site where he intended to realise profit. It was added by PW 5 that the nature of project required called engagement of persons who are dealing with fill. The contractors were engaged and brought machinery which are costly for each day that the machineries are there. PW 5 reiterated to have entered into agreement with Mtaa wa Msangalale Mashariki residents to build office of the Mtaa and employed the residents of that area to have livelihoods. PW 5 concluded that stoppage affected him for continuing with the project to construct/ built houses there for leasing as planned came to halt. PW 5 prayed that this court be willing to declare that stoppage of the project by Dodoma City Council was not proper and impaired Plaintiff’s investment as it was wrongly stopped thus this Court should order that project must proceed to operate. The licence and permits should be re- issued and prayed that he be compensated for the amounts of costs he had incurred throughout this process. 22 | P a g e In cross examination, PW 5 stated to have not tendered any report from the Mining Commission to validate that plot of land to have been suitable for extraction of fill materials. PW 5 admitted that though Paragraph 4 of the Plaint indicates that Dodoma City Council unjustifiably cancelled the Licence, he stated that he never got any letter from the Mining Commission cancelling the broker ’s licence. PW 5 reiterated that he was levelling the plot only not mining whereby he had mining operation extracting the fill materials/ rubble from that area. The permit was for levelling not mining operation. PW 5 noted that had engaged in several agreements but nothing of such agreements was tendered. PW 5 further noted that he never mentioned any amount that was incurred nor amount of profit that he would have generated from the project. PW 5 added that he never tendered any agreements on loan amounts he had taken to facilitate project operation. PW 5 reiterated that though he intended to construct housing for leasing but no architectural drawings were tendered before this Court. The 23 | P a g e permit was levelling the area and extract the fill materials, but refuted to have mined. In re-examination, PW 5 stated that Exhibit PE 4 which was a Mining Commission ’s letter categorically indicated that the decision by Dodoma City Council was not proper and requested the project to proceed. PW 5 added that levelling involved the excavators taking the soil after cutting that soil first in order get the level that is required. Accordingly, PW 5 stated that he had not violated the permit from Dodoma City Council as he was levelling the area as permitted. Conversely, the defence had two witnesses. DW 1 one Neema Gaudence Komba, an Environmental Officer in Dodoma City Council testified that she was aware of the dispute before the court that Plaintiff was granted a permit to level the land at Msangalale Mashariki where he had a plot of land which needed levelling to allow development in the plot. However, on the third day of operation of the levelling at the site as per the permit, the Head/director of the Capital Development and the Head of 24 | P a g e Environmental Division visited the site for inspection and audit where they found the site was being drilled in contravention of the permit. It wa stated that upon perusal of the records, it was revealed that Plaintiff had done an Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) instead of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to allow drilling activities. The permit was only for extraction of fill/rubble by levelling without drilling of the land in question. It was DW 1 testimony that EPP is only done is gorges and canyons where sand is collected without drilling of the land but in the disputed site there was drilling contrary to terms of the permit. The Head of the Capital Development Division on behalf of Dodoma City Council Director decided that the Plaintiff should be stopped from execution of the project. According to DW 1, Exhibit PE 1 was the EPP relating to place where fill materials/rubble is collected without drilling. The levelling is only be taken have happened especially when the same does not involve the drilling at all. DW 1’s testimony reiterated that a ny drilling of the land would require Environmental Impact Assessment to be done before the 25 | P a g e project commences. The document in form of a letter attached on introduction of the Plaintiff required the EIA to be conducted not EPP. The findings by 1 st Defendant who visited the site found that drilling was taking place instead of levelling as allowed in the permit for the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff had violated the terms of the permit by drilling instead of just levelling of the plot of land. Also, admitted that Exhibit PE 3 was a letter which was authored to stop the excavation or drilling in the site dated 23 November 2023. The reasons for the stoppage of the permit was the environmental degradation as the activities would have required the EIA to be conducted. In Exhibit PE 1 there is a letter from Dodoma City Council to Resident Mines Office Dodoma Regional relating to the inspection of the site and in Paragraph 4 was categorically clear that development shall be levelling alone not drilling at all and inspection would be done regularly. On paragraph 6, the developer was required to conduct the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), seek and obtained EIA Certificate from the 26 | P a g e Minister for Environment. Further, there was a requirement that the developer should visit Dodoma City Council for all the procedural requirements to be complied having obtained the Certificate of EIA. There was no EIA Certificate but the Plaintiff was drilling the land not levelling of the land contrary to the permit. The Plaintiff never complied to the requirements as there were excavators drilling the land on the site which contravened the permit. In totality, there was environmental degradation and pollution on the site by the Plaintiff. It was a prayer of DW 1 that this court be pleased to dismiss the case for want of merits as there is nothing tangible on claims of the Plaintiff. In the cross examination reiterated to hold a Bachelor Degree in Urban Development and Environmental Management from Institute of Rural Development in 2015 and employed since 2017 as the Environmental Officer at Dodoma City Council. 27 | P a g e In relationship to extraction of rubble/fill materials (kifusi), DW 1 stated her responsibilities are to ensure that there is Licence from the Mining Commission and the City Council writes/issues a letter of introduction with the conditions attached thereto including the need for EIA. It is the Dodoma City Council that supervises the environmental protection against pollution and ensure protection of the rights of the Corporate Social Responsibility, to ensure that the vehicles collecting the rubble/fill materials are not causing pollution and supervise collection of government dues etc. It was further evidence of DW 1 that the fill materials are extracted in hilly areas where there is ample soil and that the Plaintiff’s land w as allowed to extract the fill materials as per permit. The City Council also issues a permit to extract rubble/fill material. Conditions are that officers must visit the site to take coordinates to know land use to determine if the land use allows extraction of fill and in case land is not permissible to extract the fill materials then permit cannot be issued. It is the EIA that allows the activities to progress as it guides the project implementations 28 | P a g e and consider the vicinity with the residents and existence of roads to avoid conflicts. All these are pre-conditions to the project implementation. It was DW 1 testimony that the permit is issued by City Director and that such permit is only issued where the preconditions are met. There was permit to extract the fill materials in the disputed land. DW 1 stated that she did not participate in the issuance of the permit and that she does not recall the date of the issuance of permit. DW 1 noted to have not tendered the permit attached to the WSD and reiterated her willingness to tender the same. At that juncture, a document entitled: Yah: Kibali cha Kuchimba Kifusi kwa ajili ya kusawazisha Eneo lenye Leseni Namba BL/027/DOM iliyopo Kata ya Dodoma Makulu Mtaa wa Msangalale Mashariki” dated 23/11/2023 was admitted and marked as Exhibit DE 1 . It was added that the pre-conditions were to be complied with prior to issuance of the permit. DW 1 stated that the Plaintiff did not comply with the terms and conditions of the permit but EIA requirement in respect of the project in disputed land was not part of the WSD. 29 | P a g e Further, DW 1 noted that Exhibit PE 3 was the letter that stopped the operation at the site and reasons for the stoppage was absence of the EIA which was not stated in Exhibit PE 3. It was added by DW 1 that stoppage was done as a result of existence of environmental degradation/ pollution. DW 1 noted that parties did not meet to resolve the matter. According to DW 1, there was a process of consultations before the permit was issued and that environmental degradation resulted from drilling using excavators not levelling. It was true that there were fees collected from that area by the Dodoma City Council and reiterated that rubble extraction is only done after the EIA has been done. DW 3 stated that existence of excavators in the land where rubbles/fill extractions was being done meant that it was not levelling but drilling. DW 1 admitted that she had nothing of documentary nature to show that there was environmental degradation in documentary evidence nature. It was reiterated that Exhibit PE 3 which was stoppage letter stated that cause of cancellation/stoppage was environmental degradation and 30 | P a g e that there was drilling of the land in question and not levelling. Levelling is only extraction of the upper part of the soil but drilling involved excavating the holes downwards to certain depth. According to DW 1, what the Plaintiff was doing was not levelling but excavating deeply in the land. DW 1 stated that she was not aware that cancellation of the permit had impact to the Plaintiff, noted the lamentation in Exhibit PE 4 from the Mining Commission to Dodoma City Council on failure to consult the Mining Commission. DW 1 stated that it was correct that Dodoma City Council has no claims against the Plaintiff in this case, and that a letter dated 03/11/2023 with conditions in Exhibit PE 1 was issued before the permit. The permit was issued on 23/11/ 2023. The issuance of permit would allow activities planned to take place. In re-examination, DW 1 reiterated that WSD at paragraph 2 reveals that EIA was there though words used are not explicit and that conditions in the Exhibit PE 3 are reflecting the need for EIA. DW 1 added that she was aware that Plaintiff was found drilling and not levelling the land as per 31 | P a g e permit. As per DW 1, conditions are prerequisite for permit to be issued and in case after the permit is granted, it is discovered that the conditions were not met then permit is stopped or suspended/cancelled immediately. That was totality of the evidence on record. Also, it is on record that the learned counsel for the Plaintiff complied with the court order to file final written submission, if any, by the parties as per the order dated 22 April 2026. Having heard the parties, this court is duty bound to determine the validity of the claim or otherwise. In attempt to address the matter, a serious perusal of the pleadings, evidence on record, final written submissions and applicable legal principles both statutory and case laws were consulted and reviewed to address the issues of this case. However, by virtue of the principle that pleadings and written submissions are not evidence as encompassed in Ibrahim Abdallah vs Selemani Hamisi (Civil Appeal 314 of 2020) [2022] TZCA 43 (21 February 2022) (TANZLII), 32 | P a g e at page 11, this court shall not reproduce the written submissions in this judgment. At the outset, it is of paramountcy to state the general position with regard to proof of civil cases. Both the statutory law, namely sections 3(2) (b), 117 and 118 of the Evidence Act, Cap 6 R.E. 2023, and case law provide to the effect that proof in civil cases is on balance on probabilities and the burden lies on the party who claims to establish the existence of facts so alleged. For instance, in the case of Sure Freight Tanzania Ltd vs XCMG Tanzania Ltd (Civil Appeal No.101 of 2020) [2023] TZCA 17286 (31 May 2023) (TANZLII), at pages 13-15, the Court reiterated at lengthy that: The third cherished principle of law is that, generally, in civil proceedings, the burden of proof lies on the party who alleges anything in his favour. We are fortified in this view by the provisions of sections 110 and 111 of the Tanzania Evidence Act, [Cap 6 R.E. 2002] (the Evidence Act). It is also common knowledge that in civil proceedings, the party with legal burden also bears the evidential burden 33 | P a g e and the standard in each case is on the balance of probabilities. See, for example Godfrey Sayi v. Anna Siame as Legal Personal Representative of the late Marry Mndolwa , Civil Appeal No. 114 of 2012 (unreported). This is also provided for under section 3 (2) (b) of the Evidence Act. It means that, the court will sustain such evidence which is more credible than the other on a particular fact to be proved. There is a litany of authorities in this aspect and one case which stands out and which this Court has always sought inspiration is the statement by Lord Denning in Miller v. Minister of Pensions [1937] 2 All. ER 372 in which he states that: "If at the end of the case the evidence turns the scale definitely one way or the other, the tribunal must decide accordingly but if the evidence is so evenly balanced that the tribunal is unable to come to a determinate conclusion one way or the other, then the man must be given the benefit of the doubt This means that the case must be decided in favour of the man unless the evidence against him reaches the same degree of cogency as is required to discharge a burden in civil case. That degree is well settled. It must carry a reasonable degree of probability, but not so high as required in criminal case. If the evidence is such that the tribunal can 34 | P a g e say- We think it is more probable than not, the burden is discharged, but, if the probabilities are equal, it is not..." It is again elementary law that the burden of proof never shifts to the adverse party until the party on whom onus lies discharges his burden and that the burden of proof is not diluted on account of the weakness of the opposite party's case. We seek inspiration from the extract in Sarkar's Laws of Evidence, 18th Edition M.C. Sarkar, S.C. Sarkar and P.C. Sarkar , published by Lexis Nexis and our previous decision in Paulina Samson Ndawavya v. Theresia Thomasi Madaha , Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2017 (unreported): "...the burden of proving a fact rest on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue and not upon the party who denies it; for negative is usually incapable of proof. It is ancient rule founded on consideration of good sense and should not be departed from without strong reason... Until such burden is discharged the other party is not required to be called upon to prove his case. The Court has to examine as to whether the person upon whom the burden lies has been able to discharge his burden. Until he arrives at such a conclusion, he cannot 35 | P a g e proceed on the basis of weakness of the other party... "[Emphasis added]. Simply summed up the legal position reveals that: One, the burden of proof lies on the party who institutes a case in a court of law. Two, the standard of proof is on balance of probabilities whereby the court shall uphold evidence that is more credible than the other. Three, the weaknesses of the opposite party do not form basis of proof of the claimant’s case. In other words, failure of the defendant/respondent to defend its case cannot be the basis of the court entering judgment in favour of the Plaintiff/applicant unless the latter had managed to sufficiently prove the case to the required standard. The first issue is whether the re was interference with the Plaintiff’s business of extracting fill matters (kifusi) and levelling his land. This aspect is not hard to determine. The evidence of the Plaintiff and Defendant reveal that: One, the Plaintiff was granted permission to extract the fill materials (rubble) at Dodoma Makulu Ward. This was supported by Exhibit DE 1 which was the permit titled: Yah: Kibali cha Kuchimba Kifusi 36 | P a g e kwa ajili ya kusawazisha Eneo lenye Leseni Namba BL/027/DOM iliyopo Kata ya Dodoma Makulu Mtaa wa Msangalale Mashariki ” dated 23/11/20 23. Two, the Plaintiff commenced operating the activities on the suit land. Among other conditions, the permit allowed the Plaintiff to collect sand for period of three months subject to renewal upon compliance with terms and conditions contained therein Three, after sometimes (some days of operations), the activities were stopped by the 1 st Defendant. Exhibit PE 3 which was a letter dated 8th December 2023 from Dodoma City Council to Alexander Ruttakinikwa John entitled: Kusitisha Kibali cha Kuchimba Kifusi cha tarehe 23/11/ 2023 kwenye eneo lenye leseni Na. BL/ 027/DOM iliyopo Kata ya Dodoma Makulu Mtaa wa Msangalale Mashariki was illustrative of the stoppage of activities on the Plaintiff’s site. Totality of the Plaintiff’s evidence is revealing that the activities of the Plaintiff to extract fill materials was in operation for few days of commencement but later on stopped. Similarly, testimony of Defendant ’ s witness is not disputing the fact that there was stoppage of activities in the Plaintiff’s land, it is lucid that such stoppage by the 1 st Defendant interfered 37 | P a g e with the Plaintiff’s business of extraction of fill materials (rubble). Thus, the first issue is answered in the affirmative. With regard to the second issue, namely whether the 1 st Defendant had justifiable reasons to cancel the permit to extract fill matters(kifusi) issued to the Plaintiff, the parties are at cross-roads. Each party shares a different view altogether on this aspect. The basis of the Plaintiff’s assertion that there were no justifiable reasons are premised on three aspects: one, that Plaintiff had done Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) prior to issuance of the permit to extract fill materials. Two, the Plaintiff obtained the permit from the 1 st Defendant. Three, the cancellation was done without involving the Mining Commission. Four, there was no environmental degradation or pollution on the site. That was totality of the evidence of the Plaintiff on record in particular from PW 1 and PW 5. Conversely, DW 1 reiterated that there was found environmental degradation/ pollution on the Plaintiff’s site. One, the Plaintiff had violated 38 | P a g e the terms and conditions of the permit by drilling the land instead of levelling. Two, there was no EIA in place to allow the drilling as such activity would require to conduct EIA study prior to the issuance of the permit. That was essentially the totality of DW 1 testimony. To underscore if there were justifiable reasons for the stoppage of the extraction of the fill materials, it is pertinent to revisit the evidence on record both oral and documentary in particular the documentary evidence. Exhibit PE 3 and Exhibit DE 1. Exhibit DE 1 had the following conditions related to the environmental issues among other conditions, in Clause 3 of the Permit namely: (iii) Halmshauri italazimika kufanya ukaguzi wa kimazingira mara kwa mara katika eneo la mradi wako. (vi) Shughuli za uvunaji zifanyike kwa kuzingatia mpango wa ulinzi wa Mazingira uliopo katika Taarifa yako ya Tathmini ya Athari kwa Mazingira (EIA) 39 | P a g e (ix) Utalazimika kutunza na kuhifadhi eneo unalovuna kifusi, Aidha hakikisha malori ya kusomba kifusi hayaharibu Mashamba ya Wakulima ili kuepusha migogoro inayoweza kujitokeza. (xi) Utalazimika kuandaa taarifa ya utekelezaji wa mpango uliopo katika Tathmini ya Athari kwa Mazingira unaonyesha namna ya kudhibiti Uharibifu wa Mazingira unaotokana na mradi wako. Iwapo itabainika kukiuka masharti haya /kuchukua madini eneo jingine lolote nje ya leseni yako, Kibali hiki kitafutwa mara moja na kupigwa faini isiyopungua Tsh 300,000/= papo hapo. Generally, conditions reveal that: One , the 1 st Defendant was obliged to visit site, inspect and audit the activities undertaken by the Plaintiff. Two , the Plaintiff was obliged to strictly adhere to Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) as per Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report. Three , the Plaintiff was duty bound to ensure protection and conservation of the land where the fill materials were extracted including ensuring degradation was not happening. Four, the Plaintiff was required mandatorily to prepare the implementation report of the EPP indicating 40 | P a g e methods of controlling the degradation or pollution in the project area. Five, failure to comply (no compliance) to the terms and conditions stated attracted immediate cancelation of the permit in question. Essentially, determination on stoppage of the activities in the Plaintiff’s project site was justifiable or otherwise depends on the compliance to the conditions stated out in Permit forming Exhibit DE 1 . Critical perusal of the evidence on record reveals that there is no serious evidence on record indicating that the Plaintiff complied with these conditions of the permit to warrant conclusion that the stoppage of the activities by 1 st Defendant in the Plaintiff’s project was unjustifia bly. It is this court’s settled view that stoppage was justified and reasons were categorically enumerated in the letter that communicated the cancellation/revocation of the permit. This court is not oblivious of testimony of PW 1 whose evidence might have bearing to the aspects in question. This court shall revert to this evidence later. In respect of Exhibit PE 3 dated 08/12/2023, partly reads as follows: 41 | P a g e YAH; KUSITISHA KIBALI CHA KUCHIMBA KIFUSI CHA TAREHE 23/11/2023 KWENYE ENEO LA LESENI NAMBA BL/027/DOM ILIYOPO KATA YA DODOMA MAKULU MTAA WA MSANGALALE MASHARIKI Tafadhali rejea kichwa cha habari tajwa hapo juu. Ofisi ya Mkurugenzi wa Jiji ilipokea barua yako ya tarehe 24/10/2023 isiyo na kumbukumbu yenye kichwa cha habari tajwa hapo juu. Mkurugenzi wa Jiji anasitisha Kibali cha kuvuna kifusi baada ya ukaguzi uliofanywa na Mkuu wa Idara ya Uendelezaji Makao Makuu na kubaini u haribifu wa Mazingira katika eneo hilo. Mara upatapo barua hii unatakiwa kusitisha shughuli ya uvunaji wa kifusi katika eneo hilo, endapo ukiendelea na shughuli za uvunaji wa kifusi hatua kali za kisheria zitachukuliwa dhidi yako. 42 | P a g e It is lucid that reason for the stoppage/cancellation of the permit was stated categorically in the letter dated 8 December 2023. Such reason was existence of environmental degradation/ pollution at the project site following site visit, inspection and audit by the Dodoma City Council officers. In fact, this evidence is in consonance with the oral testimony of DW 1 that there was a visit to the site by relevant officers from the 1 st Defendant who found that there was environmental degradation/pollution caused by activities undertaken by the Plaintiff. Similarly, PW 3 stated among others, that there were dusts arising from the Plaintiff’s site activities that was later on addressed by bring water boozer to minimize impacts of the dusts to the residents. It is certain that contents of Exhibit PE 3 reveal that 1 st Defendant acted well within the boundaries of the law in accordance with conditions set out in the permit, Exhibit DE 1. Indeed, Exhibit DE 1 had two aspects related to the 1 st Defendant namely duty to visit site, inspect and audit on compliance to conditions of the permit and take actions including 43 | P a g e cancellation or suspension where there is non-compliance to the conditions of the permit. As per evidence on record, the 1 st Defendant acted within the parameters set out in the permit thus was justified to act in the manner demonstrated in Exhibit PE 3 as stoppage/cancellation arose out of site visit and inspection at the site. It is on record that Plaintiff’s counsel basis in support of the Plaintiff’s entitlement to the judgment and decree of the court is based on misconceptions. The learned counsel’s emphasis on the Plaintiff possession of lawful approvals from both the Mining Commission and Dodoma City Council, the permit being issued only after fulfilment of mandatory preconditions, inspections and consultations; Dodoma City Council itself participated in and approved the process prior to commencement of the project, the allegations of non-compliance were not pleaded in the Written Statement of Defence; and absence of technical or scientific evidence supporting the allegations of environmental degradation do not in any manner support the Plaintiff’s case. 44 | P a g e The only tangible proof of the Plaintiff’s case would depend on project post commencement date not pre-commencement. The permit had conditions which needed to be complied with. That was the basis of the stoppage of the activities/ cancellation of the permit. Unfortunately, there is no evidence from the Plaintiff to rebut the 1 st Defendant’s evidence on this aspect that there was environmental degradation . There was no rebuttal from any of the Plaintiff’s witness that no visit and inspection was done at the Plaintiff’s site prior to cancellation of the permit/ stoppage of the activities in the project site. Also, there is no evidence that Plaintiff complied to the terms set out in the permit. Plaintiff ought to have produced a report from environmental expert post commencement of the activities on the site revealing actions taken to ensure environmental protection and conservation was done in light of the contents of EPP, Exhibit PE 1 . The permit , Exhibit DE 1 was issued after the EPP was submitted to the 1 st Defendant, Dodoma City Council. EPP which was Exhibit PE 1 is not the envisaged report stated in Exhibit DE 1 as the Plaintiff ought to have prepared a report evidencing that in 45 | P a g e undertaking the extraction of fill materials no environmental pollution or degradation occurred at all. That would have assisted this court to ascertain that contents of Exhibit PE 3 were incorrect or otherwise. At this juncture, it is with clear and informed view, this court finds that the 1 st Defendant was justified with valid reasons to cancel/stop the undertaking of the activities to extract fill materials at Plaintiff’s site as there was environmental pollution/degradation on that site arising out of such activities. The second issue is answered in the affirmative in favour of the Defendants. The third issue is what reliefs are parties entitled to, which essentially entails two main aspects: proof of the case to the required standard of balance of probabilities and remedies available to parties thereto. On burden and standard of proof in civil cases, it is established law that the burden lies on the person who alleges and standard is on balance of probabilities as per the provisions of Section 3(2)(b), 117 and 118 of the Evidence Act, Cap 6 R.E. 2023. 46 | P a g e In Anitha Muhidini Mboya vs Joseph Nemes Makoi & Others (Civil Appeal No. 117 of 2021) [2026] TZCA 392 (10 April 2026) (TANZLII), at pages 17-18, the Court reiterated that: The burden to prove forgery could not be shifted to the 2nd respondent by the appellant. Since the allegation of forgery was raised/pleaded by the appellant, it was incumbent, in terms of section 110(1) and (2) of the Evidence Act, upon her to prove so evidentially. On the subject, we recall, for the benefit of the parties, that in the case of Paulina samson Ndawavya vs Theresia Thomas Madaha, Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2017 (unreported), the Court reproduced the passage from Sarkar’s Laws of Evidence, 18th Edition M.C. Sarkar, S.C. Sarkar and P. C. Sarkar, published by Lexis Nexis as below: - “...the burden of proving a fact rests on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue and not upon the party who denies it; for negative is usually incapable of proof. It is ancient rule founded on consideration of good sense and should not be departed from without strong reason...Until such burden is discharged the other party is not required to be called upon to prove his case. The Court has to examine as to whether the person upon whom the burden lies has been 47 | P a g e able to discharge his burden. Until he arrives at such a conclusion he cannot proceed on the basis of weakness of the other party... "(At page 1896). It is unfortunate, the record bears out, that the appellant did not discharge her legal duty to prove her assertion of forgery. Instead, she appears to even blame the trial court for not taking the initiative to engage handwriting experts. This view is definitely misplaced as the court, being a fountain of justice, cannot step into the shoes of either party in the case and assist it avail the court with material evidence either proving or disproving any allegation of fact. Having perused the evidence on record thoroughly, this court is inclined to find out that the Plaintiff failed to discharge the solemn duty to prove the case to the required standard. This is addressed on five main components: failure to take bonafide steps, the status of the EPP in respect of the matter in question, effect of the letter from Mining Commission, variance between pleadings and evidence on days of operation of the project and failure to establish damages. 48 | P a g e In respect of failure to take any bona fide steps, it is humble and considered opinion of this court that defendant did not take any tangible steps to attempt to address the matter in a bona fide manner. The importance of section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, Cap 33 R.E. 2023 is illustrative on the matter. It caters for the bona fide steps by the parties in resolution of the dispute. The provision states explicitly that: 13 (1) For purposes of this Act, a person shall be deemed to have taken bona fide steps to resolve a dispute if the steps taken by the person in relation to the dispute constitute a sincere and genuine attempt to resolve the dispute out of court, having regard to the person’s circumstances and the nature and circumstances of the dispute. (2) For purposes of this Act, the following steps may be taken by a person as part of bona fide steps to resolve a dispute with another person: (a) notifying the other person of the issues that are, or may be, in dispute, and offering to discuss them with a view to resolving the dispute; (b) responding appropriately to any notification referred to under paragraph (a); 49 | P a g e (c) providing relevant information and documents to the other person to enable the other person to understand the issues involved and how the dispute may be resolved; (d) considering whether the dispute could be resolved by a process other than a court action, including reconciliation, negotiation, mediation, arbitration, warning, diversion, as applicable; (e) if a process referred under paragraph (d) is agreed to (i) agreeing on a particular person to facilitate the process, where feasible; and (ii) attending the process; (f) if a process agreed under paragraph(e) is conducted but does not result in resolution of the dispute, considering a different process; or (g) attempting to reconcile or negotiate with the other person or otherwise engage in independent evaluation, with a view to resolving some or all the issues in dispute, or authorising a representative to do so, before escalating the matter to mediation or arbitration. (3) For avoidance of doubt, the provisions of subsection (1) shall not limit the steps that may constitute taking bona fide steps to resolve a dispute. (4) The provisions of this section shall apply to all proceedings intended to be initiated in court. 50 | P a g e In the case of Beka Trading Company Limited and Another vs Tanzania Electrical Mechanical and Electronics Service Agency and Another (Civil Case No. 10631 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 7247 (26 November 2025) (TANZLII), this Court (Hon Mwakapeje, J.), at pages observed that: I am obligated at the outset to state that Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, Cap. 33 R.E. 2023 is the statutory gateway for pre-action conduct intended to encourage resolution of disputes outside court and to regulate which matters are fit for immediate litigation. In Frode Farestveit vs Mrisho Kinega Mrisho (supra) , this Court in interpreting the said section, observed that: “Section 13 thus operates as the procedural vehicle for realising that constitutional obligation by placing an initial duty on litigants to attempt settlement before invoking judicial intervention. Subsection (1) of section 13 establishes the standard of "bona fide steps," requiring that any pre-litigation engagement be sincere, substantive, and meaningfully directed at resolving the dispute. Subsection (2) provides a non-exhaustive continuum of actions that may constitute compliance, including giving notice of potential issues, inviting dialogue, exchanging information and documents, considering ADR options, 51 | P a g e participating in agreed dispute-resolution processes, and exploring alternative mechanisms if initial attempts fail. Subsection (3) reinforces the obligation's flexible yet compulsory nature by clarifying that the listed steps are not exhaustive. The mandatory character of the provision culminates in subsection (4), which unequivocally states that the section applies to all proceedings intended to be initiated in court. The statutory language leaves no room for discretion. Section 13, therefore, serves as a jurisdictional gateway, not merely a procedural ideal." Therefore, by its terms and when read together, section 13 establishes both a substantive objective (a bona fide attempt) and procedural obligations (disclosure/pleading of the steps taken) which are applied to all intended proceedings to be filed in court. The statutory text thus combines a mandatory thrust, that proceedings must be informed by bona fide pre-action conduct, with a measure of flexibility as to the forms that conduct may take. The Civil Procedure Code, as enacted, confirms section 13's place within the procedural code governing competence and the conduct of civil litigation. 52 | P a g e The Plaintiff’s evidence provides to the effect that upon receipt of letter forming Exhibit PE 3 which estopped the Plaintiff from the activities as a result of environmental degradation/pollution, Plaintiff never visited the 1 st Defendant’s office nor consulted the 1 st Defendant for clarifications or the modality of addressing the anomalies identified for continuance of the levelling activities. According to PW 5, he waited for the 1 st Defendant to initiate the meetings. In addition, the communication by 1 st Defendant to various institutions relating to the suspension/cancellation of the permit resulted into issuance of the letter of complaint by the Mining Commission forming Exhibit PE 5 . It is not Plaintiff who complained to the Mining Commission about the suspension rather a communication by the 1 st Defendant. Given the Plaintiff’s inaction in relationship to taking initiatives to understand the magnitude of the anomalies that led to stoppage of the activities in his project and modalities of ameliorating them by visiting, discussing and coming to terms with 1 st Defendant, he rushed to court for litigation. This was a prematurely preferred litigation on account that if the 53 | P a g e Plaintiff would have taken bonafide steps to resolve the matter with 1 st Defendant by addressing all the environment degradation/pollution anomalies nothing would have prevented furtherance of his land levelling activities. Second limb is on the status of the EPP Report which formed Exhibit PE 1. It was evidence on record particularly PW 1 and PW 5 that Plaintiff engaged one Eladi Focus Tarimo to conduct the Environmental Protection Plan. The evidence of PW 1 is expert evidence. The role of expert evidence is persuasive and advisory in nature. In Anitha Muhidin Mboya (Supra), at pages 11-12, the Court held that: Apart from some of them being of a persuasive nature, others, read closely, are advisory by nature to the trial Judges. In neither of them, the Court explicitly stated that in the absence of an expert opinion, the findings made by a trial judge after invoking the provisions of section 75(1) of the Evidence would be ineffective. Instead, the expert opinions were taken to be of assistance to the trial Judge. A clear example is that in the case of S 54 | P a g e vs Palirama (supra) where the court treated it as the "prudent course to obtain the handwriting expert opinion and assistance of an expert" In Khalife Mohamed vs Aziz Khalife and Another (supra) , the Court was just considering the credibility of an expert (CW1) who had testified, hence whether or not to call an expert was not an issue before it. While we acknowledge the caution to the courts in the case of Abinger Ltd vs Aston (supra ), that decision has only a persuasive affect in our jurisdiction as the law on expert opinion is well settled that courts are not bound by expert opinions, but where there is one, a departure from it require reasons be stated (see a persuasive decision in Saidi Mwamwindi vs R [1972] HCD n. 212 cited by the Court with approval in the unreported case of Marwa Chacha Gekondo vs The Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 463 of 2020). There are four quick observations on evidence of the so-called environmental expert. First , PW 1 is not registered Environmental Experts as per the requirements of the Environment Management Act, Cap 191 R.E.2023 and its regulations. This was oral evidence of PW 1 himself. Also, Exhibit PE 1 reveals that Salvatory John was the registered Environmental 55 | P a g e Expert who prepared the EPP Report. Second , the registered environmental expert never appeared before the court to testify on contents of Exhibit PE 1. Third, there was nothing on record in terms of documentary evidence to establish that PW 1 had special knowledge, expertise, experience or training to conduct EPP which are prerequisite requirements for expert opinions. Fourth , there is nothing on record to show that actually either of the two Salvatory John or Eladi Focus Tarimo was engaged to conduct the study leading to EPP report. Neither engagement letter nor contract was tendered before this court to vindicate that actually PW 1 or the alleged registered Environmental Expert (EIA Expert) was engaged to prepare the EPP and supervise implementation of alleged project. None exists on record. On account of these weaknesses, this court finds that evidence of PW 1 including Exhibit PE 1 lacks credibility to be relied upon by this court to validate existence of compliance with environmental related aspects by the said project. 56 | P a g e Further, this Court is mindful of the provision of section 108 of the Evidence Act, Cap 6 R.E. 2023 prevents oral evidence to contradict, vary, substitute or add terms contained in written evidence. The Contents of Exhibit PE 1 , is explicitly that the study on environmental issues at the project site leading EPP Report, Exhibit PE 1 was prepared by Salvatory S. John, Reg. No NEMC/EIA.0498. Also, the Environmental Experts’ Certificates issued on 20 May 2016 and 19 May 2017 are in the name of Salvatory S. John. Further, Practising Certificate dated 28 February 2022 with Reference No. NEMC/PC/EIA/2021/0076 as well as that of 2021 are both in the name of Salvatory Silvest John, and the Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) from Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA) dated 16 October 2018 is in the name of Salvatory John Tarimo. Simply, totality of Exhibit PE 1 has nothing to do with PW 1 who is alleged to have conducted the environmental study and prepared the EPP Report. As such both oral evidence of PW 1 and PW 5 as that there was compliance to environmental issues on the project site ought to be discarded. This was a legal position in the case of Nuru Finance & 57 | P a g e Business Services Co. Ltd vs Benjamin Adamson Masuba (Civil Appeal No. 284 of 2020) [2024] TZCA 169 (8 March 2024) (TANZLII), at page 15, the Court of Appeal of Tanzania guided that: Once it is shown as in this case that the contract was reduced into writing, then in terms of S. 101 of the Evidence Act, a party to such contract is not permitted to adduce oral evidence for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding or subtracting from its terms … In view of the foregoing, the respondent is barred from adducing oral evidence for the purpose of varying the written contract. The respondent tendered exhibit P1 and it is binding upon him and the appellant. We find no false representation which prejudiced the respondent. As both PW 1 and PW 5 stated that it was one Eladi Focus Tarimo (PW1) who was engaged, conducted the environmental study on the project and prepared the EPP Report which is Exhibit PE 1 , while the contents of Exhibit PE 1 reveal otherwise, the whole oral evidence of those two witnesses relating to the matter in question is of no evidential value. This is attributed also to the fact that no evidence as to terms of 58 | P a g e agreement for undertaking such activities was tendered or stated before the court. The remaining evidence on record from PW 2, PW 3 and PW 4 on question of environmental compliance miserably fails to establish such compliance to sustainable environmental management as none of them claimed any expertise in such field. Third limb is on the effect of the letter from Mining Commission. It is on evidence that PW 5 that his claim is supported by a letter from the Mining Commission that non-consultation by Dodoma City Council prior to suspension of the permit was improper and might have impaired the right of the Plaintiff. Having perused contents of Exhibit PE 4 , this court notes that following matters, namely: One, the letter arose out of communication that 1 st Defendant copied to the Mining Commission among other institution on the reasons for cancellation/suspension of the permit to extract fill materials by the Plaintiff. Two, the Plaintiff never complained to the Mining 59 | P a g e Commission on suspension/cancellation of permit, Exhibit PE 3 . Three, contents of Exhibit PE 4 represent Mining Commission’s personal opinion on the suspension/cancellation without any tangible basis in terms of how it arrived at that conclusion. As result, Exhibit PE 4 cannot in any legal sense be a basis of the Plaintiff’s claim. It does not state what loss, if any, has the Plaintiff suffered as a result of the suspension/cancellation of the permit. The fourth limb, is on variance between pleadings and evidence. It is settled that evidence tendered in court should be in consonance with pleadings such evidence intended to support. In case there are variance, then such evidence should be disregarded and the pleadings considered to have not been proved. In the instant suit, there are two pertinent issues pleaded but the evidence on record is contrary to pleadings. One, the Plaintiff in Clause 4 stated that 1 st Defendant did a cancellation of the licence in relation to the project in question. In evidence, both oral and documentary testimonies 60 | P a g e revealed that what was suspended/ cancelled was not a licence but a permit. This is as per Exhibit PE 3 which states categorically that Dodoma City Council suspended/cancelled the permit to extract fill materials. The Plaintiff Licence issued by the Mining Commission was never touched. Two, there is significant variance on days of operation at the project site. The Plaint in Clause 7 states that within three days of operation at the project site the 1 st Defendant stopped the activities. The oral testimonies of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 supports three days’ version. PW 5, the owner of the alleged project states the same to be within five days of operation. Exhibit PE 3 and Exhibit DE 1 reveal more days than three or five days. As the permit was issued on 23/11/2023 and the suspension/cancellation was done on 08/12/2026, the number of days of operation of the same exceeds three days pleaded in the Plaint. The fact that the Plaintiff, who is the owner of the project, testified that it was five days of operation in the project site when the activities were stopped, then such material evidence is in variance with pleadings. 61 | P a g e The principle on parties being bound by pleadings and treatment of variance between pleadings and evidence to lead to failure to prove the case was reiterated in the case of John Bunini vs Charles M. Mbusiro (Civil Appeal No. 576 of 2022) [2025] TZCA 350 (11 April 2025) (TANZLII), at page With regard to the variance between the appellant's pleading and the evidence led in support of his claim, there is a myriad of case law and it is indeed very elementary to observe that, in any legal proceedings, parties are generally bound by the facts and claims they present in their pleadings. This means that, in the absence of amendments, parties to a civil suit cannot present a case that contradicts or goes beyond what, they have stated in their pleadings. The rationale behind this principle is not far-tetched. It is to ensure and maintain a fair and orderly trial process by preventing the parties from changing their case in the course of trial and ensuring that the court focuses on the issues arising from the pleadings … With due respect to the appellant, this was an unauthorised departure from the facts which he had pleaded. It must be very elementary to say that, if a party attempts to present a case that departs significantly from their pleadings 62 | P a g e without seeking amendment as it happened in this case, the court may refuse to consider the new evidence or arguments and that is what the learned High Court Judge did. The fifth and last limb is on failure to establish damages by the Plaintiff has seriously impaired the Plaintiff’s case. Among others, the Plaintiff sought this court to grant orders on specific damages and general damages. Those damages ought to have been proved by evidence. In respect of the specific damages, the Plaint in Paragraph 4 and in the Orders sought reveals that Plaintiff claims for loss of business and loss of investment to the tune of not less than Tanzania Shillings One Million per day from 8th December, 2023 until the date of Judgment being loss of business income from sale of fill material (kifusi) extracted from the Plaintiff’s property. That forms partially one side of the coin that specific damages should be specifically pleaded. However, it fell short of the legal requirements on two main aspects. Apart from prayers, there is nowhere such amount of 63 | P a g e TZS 1,000,000/= was pleaded categorically on how the same was arrived at. Second, no evidence at all was tendered to support the claim. The guidance on specific damages was reiterated in the case of Reliance Insurance Co. T. Ltd & Others vs Festo Mgomapayo (Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2019) [2019] TZCA 323 (2 October 2019) (TANZLII), at page 19, where the Court held that: The law in specific damages is settled, the said damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved , but this is not the case in the current appeal. Much as we appreciate that, the respondent's vehicle was damaged during the said accident as expounded above, the evidence on record falls short of materials to form the basis of awarding specific damages. The evidence on record from all witnesses have not mentioned any single cent to have spent or incurred as loss of business or investment. Neither of the Plaintiff’s witnesses stated any amount be incurred as loss. It was expected that Plaintiff would rally evidence on the costs of conducting EIA/ EPP Study, costs of holding alleged meetings at the Ward and Mtaa 64 | P a g e level, costs of allegedly hire excavators, agreements of sale of fill materials that Plaintiff allegedly entered into, or income that was being generated in a day during the days of operation of the alleged business/investment. None of those aspects was either orally stated or proved by documentary evidence. Thus, the question of specific damages was strictly speaking never proved by an iota of evidence on record. The meaning and scope of specific damages were analysed in the case of SANLAM General Insurance Tanzania Ltd vs Dennis Charles & Another (Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2021) [2024] TZCA 105 (23 February 2024) (TANZLII) at pages 22-24, where the Court of Appeal stated that: So far as special damages are concerned, the jurisprudence instructs that such compensation must specifically pleaded and strictly proven, In Stanbic Bank Tanzania Limited (supra) , the Court, reproduced with approval, the following definition of special damages by Lord McNaughten in Stroms Bruks Aktie Bolag & Others v. J & P Hutchison [1950] AC 515 at 525: “Special damages ... are such as the law will not infer from the nature of the act. They do not follow in the ordinary 65 | P a g e course. They are exceptional in their character, and therefore, they must be claimed specially and proved strictly.” If such a claim is sufficiently particularised or detailed in the plaint , it must then be proved strictly especially by presenting documentary proof, such as receipts of payments made to substantiate loss or economic injury sustained . To compare the incidents of special damages and general damages, we wish to extract, with approval, a passage from the Kenyan decision in Joseph Kipkorir Rono v. Kenya Breweries Limited & Another Kericho HCCA No. 45 of 2003, in which Kimaru, J. aptly held that: " In current usage, special damage or special damages relate to part pecuniary loss calculable at the date of the trial , whilst general damages relate to all other items of damage whether pecuniary or non-pecuniary. If damages are special damages they must be specifically pleaded and proved as required by law. For a loss to be calculable at the date of trial it must be a sum that has actually been spent or loss that has already been incurred...Special damages and general damages are used in corresponding senses. Thus, in personal injury claims, 'special damages' refers to past expenses and lost earnings, whilst ‘general damages’ will include anticipated loss as well as damages 66 | P a g e for pain and suffering and loss of amenities.... Special damage is in the nature of past pecuniary losses or expenses while general damage is futuristic pecuniary loss or expenses. " As the evidence on record is completely silent on existence of any costs incurred or income realised by the Plaintiff prior to the date of cancellation or suspension of the activities at the site, there was no proof of specific damages at all in the circumstances of the case. On general damages, this court is confined to find out that the same was not established owing to the fact that suspension/cancellation was rightly done for valid reasons and in accordance with terms and conditions of the permit that allowed the Plaintiff to undertake activities in the site in question. In the case of Reliance Insurance Co. T. Ltd (Supra) , at page 20, the Court of Appeal stated that: 67 | P a g e The position of the law in regard to an award of general damages is settled. There is a number of authorities stating that general damages are normally awarded at the courts discretion and need not to be specifically proved. Also, this court in the case of Lello Laurent Sawe vs National Microfinance Bank PLC and Reliance Insurance Company (Tanzania) Limited, at pages 57-58, held that: Exercising the discretion of the court in granting general damages should be done judiciously. It was expected that the Plaintiff would demonstrated kind of suffering that resulted from the destruction of the goods part of the business. Without indicating in evidence any possibilities of suffering whether mental, psychological or physical made the exercise of the discretion of the court on general damages unfounded. There is no tangible evidence on record to vindicate that Plaintiff in this suit suffered any loss at all. There in neither evidence of any costs being incurred nor mental or any other suffering being suffered by the Plaint. Given the 1 st Defendant’s actions were well justifiable in compliance 68 | P a g e to terms and condition of the permit issued to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff cannot be heard claiming to have suffered any loss in circumstances as it is demonstrated that no evidence on loss at all exist on record. The question of failure to prove damages is settled at this juncture. Having considered all those five limbs, it is lucid that the evidence of the Plaintiff fell short of the required burden and standard of proof in civil cases. Weighed on scale, the evidence of the Defendant is more credible that the cancellation/stoppage of permit in the Plaintiff’s project site was justified on account of environmental degradation/pollution. Thus, the claim against the Defendants was not proved thus frivolously preferred by the Plaintiff. The last aspect is on costs of the case should not detain this court. It is the law that ordinarily costs follow the events. In this suit, it has been demonstrated that Plaintiff failed to take bonafide steps to address the matter before the institution of the case in this court. Also, the evidence on 69 | P a g e record did establish the claim. This case is one of those circumstances that this court is enjoined to consider the question of costs. The guidance on award of costs can be found on the case of DB Shapriya & Co. Ltd vs Regional Manager, TANROADS Lindi (Civil Reference No 1 of 2018) [2018] TZCA 256 (25 September 2018) (TANZLII), at pages 7-8, the Court stated that: For a start, it is common cause that costs of, and incidental to, all civil actions are awarded in the discretion of the Court: see, for instance, the decision of the Court in Tanzania Fish Processors Ltd (supra). In exercise of its discretion to award costs, the Court is generally enjoined to award costs to the successful party on the basis of the principle that "costs follow the event." Nonetheless, it is also trite that the Court may withhold costs to a successful party on any justifiable ground , which may include that party's misconduct . In this regard, I fully subscribe to the stance taken by the High Court in Nkaile Tozo (supra), in particular, that the awarding of costs, being a discretionary process, is not automatic and that costs are not awarded to the successful party as a matter of course. I find Nkaile Tozo (supra) quite relevant even 70 | P a g e though it concerned the construction of section 30 of the CPC, which is, admittedly, not applicable to the procedure before this Court. In my view, the same principles for awarding costs apply in both the High Court and this Court even though their respective sources may be different. I would also add that since the discretion in awarding or denying a party his costs must be exercised judicially and not by caprice, the Court is enjoined to state explicitly and specifically which party is to meet the costs of the action of the other party to the action. That is so especially on the reason that an award of costs to one party against the other grants a benefit to the former and imposes a liability on the latter. Such an award, therefore, cannot be merely implicit. That being the guidance, the Defendants are entitled to costs of the case to ameliorate the costs incurred as a result of the Plaintiff’s action to institute a case without tangible merits in it. It is settled view of this court that the Plaintiff did not discharge his duty to prove the suit to the required standard of balance of probabilities to be entitled to the judgment of the court. In the circumstances, the claim 71 | P a g e against the Defendants remain unproved as there was no tangible and cogent evidence to that effect. Conclusively, the Plaintiff’s suit deserve s to be dismissed for lack of merits. The suit in Land Case No 122 of 2025 is hereby dismissed for want of merits. The Defendants are entitled to costs of the case. It is so ordered. DATED and DELIVERED at Dodoma this 25 th day of May 2026. E.E. LONGOPA JUDGE 25/05/2026.