Geita Gold Mining Limited vs Elizabeth Charles Nzegenuka (Miscellaneous Land Application No. 11249 of 2026) [2026] TZHC 2561 (25 May 2026)

Page 1 of 12 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA GEITA SUB - REGISTRY AT GEITA MISCELLANEOUS LAND APPLICATION NO. 11249 OF 2026 (Arising from Land Case No. 11250 of 2025 in the High Court of Tanzania, Geita Sub - Registry) GEITA GOLD MINING LIMITED ...................................................APP LICANT VERSUS ELIZABETH CHARLES NZEGENUKA ...........................................RESPONDENT RULING Date of last Order: 13/05/2026 Date of Judgment: 2 5 /05/2026 MWAKAPEJE, J.: Under a certificate of urgency, the applicant herein seeks a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from withdrawing TZS 48,322,083/= allegedly deposited by mistake into the respondent ’s CRDB Bank account No. 10171470997. The application is brought under Order XXXVII, Rules 1(a) and 2(1), Sections 78(e) and 105 of the Civil Procedure Code, Cap. 33 R.E. 2023, and is supported by the affidavit of David Nzaligo, the applicant ’s Head of Legal and Secretary. The applicant averred that she has instituted Land Case No. 6076 of 2026 before the High Court, Geita Sub - Registry, against the respondent , seeking, among other reliefs, a declaration that the respondent trespassed into the applicant ’s area covered under Special Page 2 of 12 Mining Licence No. 45/99 and unlawfully erected structures therein in anticipation of compensation. It is further stated that during a compensation exercise conducted in Nyakabale Village in 2025, the applicant inadvertently entered into a Compensation Agreement with the respondent on 9 March 2026 concerning Parcel No. VAL/GTA/NKB/1619/L despite the pending land dispute. Subsequently, through further inadvertence, the applicant transferred TZS 48,322,083/= to the respondent ’s account on 27 March 2026 and later executed an acknowledgement of receipt of compensation payment. The applicant contends that unless restrained, the respondent is likely to withdraw the funds, thereby rendering the pending suit nugatory. It is further averred that the respondent lacks known assets or a reliable source of income from which recovery could be made should the applicant succeed in the main suit. Accordingly, the applicant maintains that the balance of convenience favours preservation of the funds pending determination of the suit. The application was opposed by the respondent through a counter - affidavit in which she partly admitted and partly denied the applicant ’s averments. She admitted that the applicant conducted a valuation Page 3 of 12 exercise in 2025 for compensation purposes within the Nyakabale area under Special Mining Licence No. 45/99 , but denied that the Compensation Agreement executed on 9 March 2026 was entered into inadvertently, thereby placing the applicant to strict proof thereof. The respondent further stated that on 27 March 2026 , she received TZS 48,722,083/= from the applicant into her CRDB account, but shortly thereafter, the account was restricted from transacting, rendering her unable to access the funds. She consequently disputed the applicant ’s claim that the payment was made erroneously. At the hearing, the applicant was represented by Mr. Galati Mwantembe, learned advocate, while the respondent was represented by Mr. Heri Kayinga, also learned advocate. In support of the application, adopting the contents of the applicant ’s affidavit, Mr. Mwantembe submitted that the applicant seeks a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from withdrawing TZS 48,322,083/= allegedly deposited into her CRDB account by mistake, pending the determination of Land Case No. 6076 of 2026 before this Court . Counsel submitted that the respondent is alleged in the main suit to have trespassed into the applicant ’s Special Mining Licence No. 45/99 and unlawfully occupied the area in anticipation of compensation. During the Page 4 of 12 compensation exercise in Nyakabale Village, the respondent was inadvertently treated as a lawful beneficiary, resulting in the execution of compensation documents and the subsequent payment of the disputed amount. He argued that the issue of the respondent ’s entitlement to compensation remains the central issue in the main suit and is yet to be determined. Consequently, preservation of the funds is necessary to avoid rendering the suit nugatory should the respondent withdraw the money. Counsel further submitted that the applicant had established the conditions for the grant of an injunction, namely the existence of triable issues and the likelihood of irreparable loss, while the respondent would suffer no prejudice as the funds would remain intact pending the determination of the suit. In reply, Mr. Kayinga adopted the respondent ’s counter - affidavit in opposition and submitted that the application was defective as it was founded on an affidavit containing falsehoods, particularly the averment that the Compensation Agreement was executed inadvertently. Counsel argued that the Compensation Agreement expressly recognised the respondent as a lawful occupier and set out the compensation amount and the account details for payment. He submitted that the agreement was executed by David Nzaligo on behalf of the Page 5 of 12 applicant on 9 March 2026, and that payment was made on 27 March 2026, thereby giving the applicant sufficient opportunity to rectify any alleged mistake. Relying on Desmo Boas vs Elina Egidius Paskal @ Paschal (Miscellaneous Land Application No. 5548 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 2464 (27 May 2025) , counsel submitted that affidavits containing falsehoods vitiate proceedings. He further argued that the compensation process had undergone official approval, including verification by the Chief Government Valuer, and that the applicant could not subsequently disown the process. Counsel also relied on FINCA Tanzania Mwanza Branch & Another vs Musa Kazungu Shigula & Another (Civil Appeal No. 128 of 2025) [2026] TZCA 4 (19 January 2026), for the proposition that a person signing a document is presumed to have understood and accepted its contents. He therefore contended that the applicant was bound by the Compensation Agreement and that affidavit averments could not override documentary evidence. On the principles of injunctions, counsel submitted that the applicant had failed to establish a prima facie case or likelihood of success, while the balance of convenience favoured the respondent , who had already been recognised as eligible for compensation and had developed Page 6 of 12 a legitimate expectation of access to the funds. He therefore prayed for dismissal of the application with costs. In rejoinder, Mr. Mwantembe submitted that the allegation that the affidavit of David Nzaligo contained falsehoods was a serious matter that could not be determined merely on submissions, but required examination at trial. He argued that the affidavit itse lf explained the compensation process and the execution of documents, while maintaining that the payment was made in error, an issue to be determined upon the full hearing of the main suit. Counsel maintained that the central issue remained whether the respondent was lawfully entitled to the compensation, thus raising a serious triable issue requiring preservation of the subject matter pending determination of the suit. On the balance of convenience, counsel submitted that the respondent would suffer no prejudice if the injunction was granted as the funds would remain preserved in her account, whereas allowing withdrawal of money allegedly paid to an undeserving beneficiary would occasion prejudice to the applicant . He therefore prayed that the application be granted. I have carefully considered the application, the affidavits filed by both parties, the annexures thereto and the submissions advanced by Page 7 of 12 learned counsel for the parties. The issue for determination is whether the applicant has established sufficient grounds warranting the grant of a temporary injunction. The application is brought under Order XXXVII Rule 1(a) and (b) of the Civil Procedure Code, Cap. 33 R.E. 2023, which empowers the Court to grant temporary injunctive relief where the subject matter of a suit is shown to be in danger of being wasted, damag ed, alienated, disposed of, or otherwise dealt with in a manner likely to prejudice the rights of a party pending determination of the suit. The power to grant such relief, however, is discretionary and must be exercised cautiously. This is because an interlocutory injunction restrains a party from dealing with property before the final determination of rights, which may ultimately be found to vest in that party. Consequently, the Court should only intervene where preservation of the property in its existing state is necessary to safeguard the subject matter of the dispute. The purpose of an interlocutory injunction is therefore to preserve the subject matter pendente lite so that the eventual decision of the Court is not rendered nugatory. The principles governing the exercise of that discretion were succinctly laid down in Atilio v. Mbowe (1969) HCD No. 289, namely , that : Page 8 of 12 (i) there exists a serious question to be tried at the hearing, and there is a probability that he will be entitled to the relief sought ( or in other words, that he has a prima facie case to go to trial ) ; (ii) the Court's interference is necessary to protect him from that species of injury which the Court calls irreparable before his legal right can b e established on trial, and (iii) the comparative mischief or the inconvenience which is likely to arise from withholding the injunction will be greater than that which is likely to arise from granting it . The first question is whether the applicant has demonstrated a prima facie case disclosing a serious triable issue. The concept of a prima facie case was discussed in Sarkar on Code of Civil Procedure , 10th Edition (Reprint, 2004), Vol. II at page 2032, where it is stated that : “The prima facie case means that the petitioner need not fulfil his case on merits at the stage of hearing an application, but it would be sufficient for him to show that he has a fair question to raise as to the existence of his right till the question is ripe for trial or disposal of the case……….. Existence of a prima facie case does not mean that the plaintiff should have a court percent case. What it means is that the plaintiff should have some case which requires to be gone in to and is not liable to be thrown at the threshold?” In short, a party need not establish its entire case at the interlocutory stage; rather, it is sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a fair and arguable question requiring investigation at trial. Page 9 of 12 Applying that principle to the present matter, the Court notes that it is undisputed that the sum of TZS 48,322,083/= was transferred into the respondent ’s account pursuant to a compensation process undertaken by the applicant . Equally undisputed is the existence of a Compensation Agreement executed between the parties and the acknowledgement of receipt of the compensation payment. However, the applicant contends that the agreement and subsequent payment arose through inadvertence since the respondent was allegedly among persons who had unlawfully occupied the applicant ’s mining area and whose entitlement to compensation is already the subject of Land Case No. 6076 of 2026. Conversely, the respondent maintains that the compensation process was lawful, deliberate and undertaken after valuation and approval by relevant authorities. The competing positions disclose that the dispute extends beyond the mere transfer of funds. The real controversy is whether the respondent was lawfully entitled to compensation and whether the payment constituted a genuine compensation entitlement or an erroneous disbursement. That issue remains unresolved and is already the subject of the pending substantive suit. At this interlocutory stage, the Court is not required to determine the veracity of allegations relating to inadvertence, validity of the Page 10 of 12 compensation process or whether the respondent was indeed a trespasser, as doing so would amount to prematurely determining issues reserved for trial. Likewise, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, the allegations that the supporting affidavit contains falsehoods cannot be conclusively determined without testing evidence during trial proceedings. In my considered view, the unresolved question regarding entitlement to compensation raises a serious triable issue which cannot be dismissed at the threshold. Accordingly, the applicant has established a prima facie case sufficient for purposes of interlocutory relief. The next consideration is whether the applicant would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction were withheld. The property sought to be preserved is a specific sum of money presently held in the respondent ’s account. Although monetary claims are ordinarily compensable by damages, the peculiar circumstances of this matter require closer consideration. The applicant alleges the absence of known assets or a reliable means by which recovery could be effected if the substantive suit succeeds. While this assertion remains untested, it was not effectively displaced by evidence demonstrating the respondent ’s ability to reimburse the disputed amount. Page 11 of 12 Moreover, the apprehension raised by the applicant is that once the funds are withdrawn and utilised before determination of the substantive dispute, recovery may become impracticable, thereby rendering the pending proceedings nugatory. Preservation of the disputed amount , therefore, serves to protect the efficacy of the ultimate decision of the Court. In these circumstances, t he Court is therefore satisfied that withholding interim protection may expose the applicant to prejudice incapable of immediate remedy should the suit eventually succeed. Lastly , there is the question of the balance of convenience. The respondent argues that she had already acquired a legitimate expectation to access and utilise the compensation after execution of the agreement and acknowledgement documents. While the Court appreciates such concern, it must be balanced against the fact that the substantive question of entitlement remains unresolved. On the other hand, granting the injunction merely preserves the status quo without finally depriving the respondent of the funds. The amount remains intact pending adjudication of the parties' substantive rights . Conversely, refusal of the injunction risks the disputed funds being withdrawn before the suit is determined , thereby exposing the applicant Page 12 of 12 to greater prejudice. In these circumstances, the balance of convenience tilts in favour of preservation rather than release of the disputed funds. Consequently, I am satisfied that the applicant has established sufficient grounds for the grant of the relief sought. Accordingly, the application succeeds. A temporary injunction is hereby issued restraining the respondent from withdrawing or otherwise dealing with the sum of TZS 48,322,083/= held in Account No. 10171470997 maintained at CRDB Bank Plc pending determination of the main suit. Costs shall abide the outcome of the main suit. It is so ordered. DATED at GEITA this 2 5 th day of May 2026. G.V. MWAKAPEJE JUDGE