Kwangu James Malimi and Others vs Sotta Mining Corporation Limited and Another (Misc. Land Application No. 30292 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 8501 (19 December 2025)

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA IN THE SUB - REGISTRY OF MWANZA AT MWANZA MISC. LAND APPLICATION NO. 30292 OF 2025 (Arising from Land Case No. 30159 of 2025) KWANGU JAMES MALIMI.................................... ......... ............. 1ST APPLICANT GODFREY ANTHONY KATUMA ............................ ......... ............ 2ND APPLICANT DEODATUS ALOYCE MPOGOLE............................. ......... . ......... 3RD APPLICANT VERSUS SOTTA MINING CORPORATION LIMITED ............. ....... ........ 1ST RESPONDENT ACE CONSULTANTS LIMITED ............................... ........ ....... 2ND RESPONDENT RULING 15/12/2025 & 19/12/2025 ROBERT, J: - This is an interlocutory application whereby the Applicants seek an order of this Court maintaining the status quo in respect of a landed property measuring 264.151 acres situated at Sotta Village, Igar ula Ward, Sengerema District, and identified under valuation references VAL/SOT/1038/L; VAL/SOT/977/L; VAL/SOT/1041/L; VAL/SOT/032/L; VAL/SOT/1039/L; VAL/SOT/976/L; VAL/SOT/1057/L; VAL/SOT/854/L; and VAL/SOT/1068/L, pending the hearing and final determinat ion of Land Case No. 30159 of 2025.

2 The Applicants contend that unless the current state of affairs is preserved, the Respondents are likely to enter upon, disturb, or develop the disputed land in a manner that may prejudice the Applicants’ proprietary rights and render the outcome of the pe nding land suit nugatory . The application is brought under Order XXXVII Rules 1(a) and 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, Cap. 33 R.E. 2023, together with sections 78 (c) & (e) and 105 of the same law , section 2(1) and (3) of the Judicature and Application of Laws Act (Cap. 358 R.E. 2023) and section 5(1) of the Environmental Management Act (Cap.191 R.E. 2023), Sections 51(3)(d), 120(1)(b)(i) and (ii) and 121(1) of the Mining Act (Cap. 123 R.E. 2023). From the material placed before the Court, it is not in dispute that the Applicants claim ownership and occupation of several parcels of land situate at Sotta Village, Igalula Ward, Sengerema District, measuring in aggregate 264.151 acres, which were ident ified during an official valuation exercise under the valuation references stated above.

3 The Applicants depose that they have been in peaceful and uninterrupted occupation of the said land for a considerable period, during which they extensively developed it through cultivation, tree planting, and other unexhausted improvements. It is further deponed, and supported by documentary annexures, that in the course of the Respondents’ intended mining project, the Applicants were formally engaged in a valuation process, issued with statutory valuation notices, authorised entry onto their land, and were eventually issued with tally cards authenticated by the relevant local authorities and the 2nd Respondent, establishing the value of the lan d and unexhausted improvements. According to the Applicants, the valuation assessed their land and developments at a value exceeding Tanzania Shillings Nine Billion, which valuation has never been reviewed, set aside, or lawfully replaced. They contend that this created a legitimate expe ctation that compensation would be effected prior to any deprivation of their proprietary rights.

4 The Applicants further aver that notwithstanding the valuation, the Respondents later sought to reclassify portions of the land, excluded certain indigenous trees and perennial crops from compensation, made partial compensation payments in respect of some parcels, and have recently begun entering the land and preparing to commence mining activities before completion of the acquis ition and compensation process. At the hearing, the Applicants were absent but represented by Mr. Elias Hezron, Advocate, who moved the application and adopted the joint supporting affidavit. Learned counsel submitted that the Applicants have satisfied the three conditions for the grant of a temporary injunction as laid down in Atilio v. Mbowe (1969) HCD 284, namely the existence of a prima facie case, likelihood of irreparable inju ry, and balance of convenience. Counsel relied on Article 24 of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, 1977, section 57(1) of the Mining Act, Cap. 123 R.E. 2023, and the decision in Attorney General v. Lohay Akonaay & Another [1995] TLR 80, to submit that deprivation of land without prior compensation is

5 unlawful and unconstitutional. He further submitted that public interest demands observance of the law, not its circumvention. In response, Mr. Sinare Zaharan, Advocate, appearing for the Respondents, informed the Court that no counter - affidavit had been filed and left the matter to the discretion of the Court, subject to the Applicants satisfying the legal requirements for the grant of the relief sought. The sole issue for determination is whether the Applicants have satisfied the conditions for the grant of an order maintaining the status quo pending determination of the main suit. This application is premised on Order XXXVII Rule 1(a) of the Civil Procedure Code, which empowers the Court to grant temporary injunctions where property in dispute is in danger of being wasted, damaged, or alienated, and on sections 78(e) and 105 of the Code, which preserve the Court’s discretionary and inherent jurisdiction to issue interlocutory orders nec essary for the ends of justice. It is settled law that the grant of such relief is governed by the principles enunciated in Atilio v. Mbowe (supra) and affirmed by the Court of Appeal

6 in Abdi Ally Salehe v. ASAC Care Unit Ltd & 2 Others , Civil Revision No. 3 of 2012. On whether a prima facie case with a probability of success has been established, the Court is satisfied that the Applicants have placed before it material disclos ing serious and triable issues. The Applicants have demonstrated, through valuation notices, Forms No. 1 and 69, tally cards, and correspondence with village and ministerial authorities, that they were formally recogni z ed as lawful occupiers and beneficiaries of compensation in respect of the disputed land. Of particular relevance is the uncontroverted deposition that even village leadership acknowledged that the land, including the elevated portions now disputed, had never been Government land. The Court also takes note of the Applicants’ assertion that the Respondents made partial compensation payments in respect of some of the same parcels arising from the valuation exercise. Prima facie, this conduct affirms recognition of both the valuation a nd the Applicants’ proprietary interests.

7 Whether the Respondents could lawfully reclassify portions of the land, vary valuation outcomes, or proceed with mining activities without completing compensation are matters that fall squarely within Land Case No. 30159 of 2025 and cannot be conclusively determined at this stage. They nonetheless raise substantial questions touching on Article 24 of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania and s ection 57(1) of the Mining Act. The Court therefore finds that the Applicants have established a prima facie case. On the second limb, the Applicants have demonstrated more than a mere monetary dispute. They have deponed that a substantial number of indigenous trees and mature perennial crops were omitted from the final compensation schedule, and that commencement of m ining activities would pe rmanently destroy those assets. The Applicants further aver that the disputed land lies on hilly terrain, and that excavation would irreversibly alter the topography, erase boundary features, and render it impracticable for this Court to conduct a meaningful locus in quo inspection, shou ld such an exercise be required at trial.

8 Once such crops, trees, and physical features are destroyed, their existence and value cannot be accurately verified or reassessed. In the view of this Court, such loss is irreversible and cannot b e adequately atoned by damages. As held in Attorney General v. Lohay Akonaay (supra), denial of compensation prior to deprivation of land implicates constitutional rights and transcends a purely pecuniary claim. The Court is satisfied that the Applicants have demonstrated the li kelihood of irreparable injury. As regards the balance of convenience, the Applicants have shown that the Respondents have already lawfully acquired and compensated other parcels within the larger mining area and can cont inue operations on those lands. On the other hand, the Applicants face imminent eviction, destruction of their livelihood, and permanent loss of unexhausted improvements on land whose acquisition and compensation remain unresolved. The order sought merely preserves the subject matter of the suit; it does not finally determine rights nor halt the Respondents’ project in its

9 entirety. The balance of convenience therefore tilts decisively in favou r of the Applicants. The Court is further persuaded that permitting mining or production activities to proceed on land whose acquisition and compensation are contested would amount to pre - empting the final determination of the main suit. Interlocutory relief exists precisely t o prevent irreversible acts that would render the Cour t’s eventual decision academic. Having carefully considered the pleadings, the joint affidavit, and the submissions of counsel, the Court finds that the Applicants have satisfied all the conditions for the grant of an or der maintaining the status quo. Status quo in respect of the land measuring 264.151 acres situated at Sotta Village, Igalula Ward, Sengerema District, identified as VAL/SOT/1038/L; VAL/SOT/977/L; VAL/SOT/1041/L; VAL/SOT/032/L; VAL/SOT/1039/L; VAL/SOT/976/L; VAL/SOT/1057/L; VAL/SOT/854/L; and VAL/SOT/1068/L, is hereby maintained pending the determination of Land Case No. 30159 of 2025.

10 The Respondents, their agents, servants, or any persons acting under their authority are restrained from entering upon, excavating, developing, or conducting mining or related activities on the disputed land until final determination of the main suit o r further orders of this Court. Although the application has succeeded, the Court notes that the Respondents did not oppose it and no misconduct has been attributed to either party at this interlocutory stage. The Court therefore declines to make an order as to costs. It is so ordered. K.N. ROBERT JUDGE 19/12/2025