By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

It is sworn further that in the course of his apparently undisturbed possession theapplicant developed the land by erecting both commercial and residential premises, andthat he executed those works without warning or objection from all or any of therespondents.Paragraphs 9, and 10 specifically relate to matters of a general nature concerninginterest in the suit land that the other applicants allege they enjoy severally. For instance,it is sworn in paragraph 8 that the majority of the parcels of land that are occupied by theother applicants lie between 6.22 and 23.12 miles from the Askari statue and within adistance of between seventy – five (75) feet and four hundred (400) feet from the centreof the Morogoro highway. According to paragraphs 9 and 10 of the affidavit the bulk ofthe lands occupancy, and that the rest of those lands are held under rights of occupancygranted under the Land Ordinance Cap. 113.In common with the first applicant’s own land, it is sworn that the other parcels of landhave been developed without let or hindrance from anyone, with residential andcommercial buildings and farms.The peaceful possession of the suit parcels of land changed into uncertainly whensometime in 1991 the second respondent and/or the third respondent marked with an “X”all buildings then standing on the suit land, denoting Government intention to demolishthem. It seems that it was not desired to effect that intention immediately.For it was on Friday, the 11 th day of July, this year that the Deputy Minister of Worksannounced Government resolve to effect that intention when he made a statement in theNational Assembly which according to paragraph 12 of the affidavit contained thefollowing directives, that is to say:-(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)(v)That Government intends to undertake extensive expansion of the MorogoroRoad between Ubungo and Kimara/Temboni.That the Ministry of Works required the applications to demolish, at their owncost, their houses, buildings and other structures before 1 st September 1997.That the Ministry of Works would itself carry out the demolition after 1 stSeptember, 1997.That no compensation would be paid to the applicants; andThat the applicants would bear the cost o such demolition by the Ministry.It is sworn in paragraph 13 of the supporting affidavit that on diverse dates as reported inthe print media., annextures marked IIA, IIB, IIC, IID, IIE, IIF, IIG, and IIH, that theDeputy Minister of Works and on behalf of the second and third respondents, repeatedly231