By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

stated that the applicants would not be paid compensation upon the demolition of theirbuildings and other structures.What is more, as sworn in paragraph 15, the respondents have arrogantly ignored theapplicants’ protest. Copy of the letter of protests is annexture III to the affidavit. Theapplicants are now advised by their advocates that the actions threatened by the secondand the third respondents are illegall to the extent that they contravene provisions of thehighways Ordinance, Cap. 167, the land Acquisition Act, 1967 and the Constitution ofthe United Republic. It is in that connection that Professor G. Mgongo – Fimbo, theapplicants learned counsel, has taken out a chamber summons on their behalf that spellsout the reliefs they seek.The respondents have opposed the application, first by notice of preliminaryobjection, secondly, by counter affidavit. There are four points of preliminary objection.First, that the affidavit in support of the application does not give a full and frankdisclosure on the following facts:-(a) names of applicants who hold title deeds or describe the propeties of each in asufficient extent as to enable the respondents to prepare their defence;(b) the circumstances leading each of the applications to the occupation of the landwithin the highway corridor and reserve in view of the fact that the occupiersthereof were adequately compensated in the 1970;(c) whether or not the applicants had been issued with building permits fordevelopment of permanent structures thereof;(d) the whole of Dar es Salaam within which the disputed area is located has beendeclared a development area and as such, deemed rights of occupancy have beenextinguished.The first preliminary objection concludes that the affidavit in support of the applicationunfairly prejudices the respondents to making their defence and, to that extent, it shouldbe struck outSecondly, it is averred by the respondents that there are applicants who do notown do not own any property within the Highway corridor and road reserve, andconsequently, that they have no standing to bring the application and that their inclusionis an abuse of the court process.Thirdly, that this is an unfit case to be determined by way o judicial review. That therespondents have noticed that some of the certificates of occupancy issued to some of theapplicants are not genuine.Fourthly, in the alternative and without prejudice to the first three preliminarypoints of objection, the respondents pray the the applicants be ordered to provide securityto cushion the respondents against increased construction costs that will arise out of thedelay in commencing the works due to the applicanats’ objections because on a balanceof convenience the respondents. Are likely to be more adversely affected than the232