IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA

(DAR ES SALAAM SUB DISTRICT REGISTRY)

AT DAR ES SALAAM
LAND CASE NO. 53 OF 2017
AL-QASSIMY TRADING CO LTD………..…………….…………………… PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
TANZANIA PORTS CORPORATION...………………….……………….... DEFENDANT

JUDGMENT
Date of last order: 29/06/2022
Date of Judgment: 19/08/2022
E.E. KAKOLAKI, J.
The Plaintiff herein a limited liability company duly registered under

Companies Act, [Cap. 212 R.E 2002] is suing the defendant a public

corporation established under the Ports Act, 2004, for a declaratory

judgment for its failure to negotiate renewal of a tenancy agreement as per

the agreement and that, the abrupt increase of rent of the leased premises

by 485% without prior negotiation with the tenant (plaintiff) is unjustified.

She is further claiming against the defendant for payment of Tanzania

Shillings Two Hundred and Thirty Eight Million One Hundred and Fifty Five

Thousand One Hundred and Eight cents (Tshs. 238,155,100.08), being value

of a constructed office space as well as general damages.

1
The plaintiff is thus claiming for following reliefs; (a) A declaratory order that

the Plaintiff be given the justifiable opportunity to negotiate with the

defendant renewal of a tenancy agreement of 2016; (b) A declaratory order

that the abrupt increase of rent by 485% without negotiations with the

tenant is unjustified and (c)That, it is unlawful for the defendant which is a

Tanzania entity to lease office space to the Plaintiff which is also a Tanzanian

entity in foreign currency of United States Dollars instead of Tanzanian

Shilling. The other reliefs are (d) That, the defendant either pays back or

deduct as rent after negotiations with the plaintiff Tanzania shillings two

hundred and thirty eight million one hundred and fifty five thousand one

hundred and eight cents (Tshs.238,155,100.08), being value of the

constructed office space;(e ) An order directing the defendant to pay general

damages as the honourable court may determine for each lapsing day from

the day the defendant refused to negotiate a new lease agreement with the

plaintiff ;(f) Costs and any other relief that the honourable court may deem

it fit to grant.

The background story revolving around parties dispute as garnered from

the plaint can be simply stated thus, on 9th February, 2009 the defendant

executed a lease agreement with plaintiff for lease of a piece of land or an

2
open space to be referred as suit/demised premises located next to the

baggage room at Dar es salaam harbour to be used as plaintiff’s ticketing

office for a monthly rent of United Dollars 72.50. Upon payment of annual

rent and preparation of architectural drawings the plaintiff engaged M/S A &

P Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd for Tanzania Shillings Sixty Nine

Million One Hundred Fourteen Thousands Nine Hundred and Fifty (Tshs.

69,114,950/=) to construct on the demised premises a ticketing office.

According to the Plaintiff up to the time of filing this suit the complete

ticketing office had attained the value of Tshs. 238,155,100.08 which is being

claimed as specific damages. The plaintiff continued enjoying a peaceful

tenancy from 2009 to 2016 renewed yearly before the last agreement

expired on 31st January, 2017 when she requested for renewal of the

Tenancy agreement in writing without response from the defendant. On 16th

March 2017, she received a letter from the defendant with lease agreement

for the year 2017 indicating an increased rent from USD $ 600.00 per month

charged in the last agreement to USD $2,910.00 per month which had hiked

nearly to 485%. In response to the said defendant’s letter the plaintiff

requested for joint discussions over the rent of 2017 lease agreement but

the defendant vide her letter dated 4th of July 2017, availed her no choice

3
than to either to sign the new lease agreement and pay the rent with seven

(7) days or else vacate the premises otherwise will be evicted and have her

properties impounded. Despite of several demands for negotiations by the

plaintiff for reduction of rent rate or compensation for the costs incurred for

office construction, the defendant turned her ears deaf hence the present

suit.

When served with the plaint, defendant filed her defence by way of written

statement of defence calling the plaintiff to strict proof of her claims save for

the facts the existence of lease agreement for an open space renewable

annually, the fact that the plaintiff requested for renewal of tenancy

agreement vide her letter of 20th September, 2016, and joint discussions of

increased rent in which the defendant responded back in writing informing

her the matter was not for negotiations but rather execution.

During the final pre-trial conference the following issues were proposed by

the parties and framed for determination of parties’ dispute by this court:

1. Whether the defendant’s increase of rent by 485% in the new contract

to the plaintiff was justified in law.

4
 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation to the tune of Tshs.

238,155,100.08 for the structures constructed on the leased land under

the tenancy agreement.

3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to general damages.

4. To what reliefs are the parties entitled to.

During the hearing the plaintiff was represented by Capt. Ibrahim Bendera

and Godfrey Ukwonga, learned advocates while the defendant enjoyed the

legal service of Mr. Shija Charles , Ramadhan Ngogo and Kulwa Mumbuli, all

learned State Attorneys. Plaintiff’s case was built by two witnesses Omary

Ally Said (PW1), marketing manager of the plaintiff and Mohamed Omary

Mangochi (PW2), contractor from M/S A & P Engineering and Construction

Co. Ltd as well as three (3) documentary exhibits. The documentary exhibits

are Bill of quantities for construction of ticketing office (Exhibit PE1), a letter

dated 16/03/2017 from the defendant to the plaintiff communicating an

increase of rent to USD 2910 per month (Exhibit PE2) and the letter dated

23/04/2017 from the defendant rejecting to reduce the rent (Exhibit PE3).

On the defendant’s side one witness Zainabu Pierson Mauya (DW1), the

Principal estate officer of the defendant was summoned to disprove the

plaintiff’s claims and tendered one exhibit, a tenancy agreement dated

5
16/6/2012 (Exhibit DE1). At the end of the trial both parties filed their final

submission which in the course of this judgment I will be making reference

to.

Briefly it was plaintiff’s case through PW1 that, in 2009 the plaintiff leased

an open space at the demised premises for consideration of monthly rent of

USD 72 before the same was increased to USD 145 from the year 2010 to

2013 and later on to USD 600 from 2014-2016. He said, after execution of

the agreement in 2009, architectural drawings of the office were prepared

and the contractor engaged to erect the marketing and ticketing office on

the suit premises which was completed in 2010. Bill of quantities for the

proposed construction of commercial building at Posta Ilala Municipality, Dar

es salaam was tendered and admitted a exhibit PE1. This witness went on

stating that, the plaintiff enjoyed her peaceful tenancy until 2017 when she

received a letter from the defendant dated 16/03/2017 (Exhibit PE2)

accompanied with a contract, notifying her of the increased rent rate to USD

2910 per month, with an annual rent invoice of USD 41,2005.60 for the year

2017. He said as the rent had hiked for almost 500% the plaintiff asked the

defendant to consider reducing it but the later rejected through her letter

dated 25/04/2017 (Exhibit PE3) with an option of either to sign the contract

6
or vacate the suit premises, the options which she failed to pick any as a

result defendant closed their office. PW1 concluded by telling this court that,

the plaintiff’s prayer before this court was for an order of this Court to TPA

to enter into negotiation with them on new contract over the leased open

space for reducing rent which had increased almost for 500%. In the

alternative he prayed, if TPA has a new tenant be ordered to compensate

the plaintiff of her construction costs to the tune of Tshs.238,000,000/= and

pay her general damages for inconvenience caused as well as costs of the

case.

During cross-examination when asked as to whether there was increase of

rent before and the same is normal or not PW1 responded that, indeed there

was such increase of rent by the defendant and that in any lease agreement

such increase is normal. When referred to Exhibit PE1 and asked what was

the BoQ for, he said it was referring to the construction of commercial

building at Posta Ilala Municipality and not the ticketing office. When further

referred to Exhibit PE3 and asked whether the letter and BOQ were referring

to the same place, PW1 responded that, according to that letter the leased

space was for baggage room which is at Sokoine Drive but the proposed

construction as per the BOQ was meant to be done at Posta. When referred

7
to paragraph 7 of the plaint and questioned as to whether at the time of

institution of this suit there was a valid contract between parties, PW1

response was that, there was none. And finally when referred to Exhibit PE1,

PE2 and PE3 as to whether there was evidence that permission for

construction of office was sought from TPA, PW1 said it is stated nowhere

in those documents that, plaintiff got permission for construction of claimed

office on the leased open space.

The next witness for prosecution was Mohamed Omary Manguchi (PW2),a

contractor testified to the effect that, the Plaintiff was their client as in 2009

she engaged their construction company to construct the office at baggage

room area for Tshs.69,114,950/=. This witness said, in that work they

submitted the bill of quantities basing on the above figure. When cross

examined as to whether engagement document were supposed to be in

writing and if there was such proof, this witness confessed that, it is true the

issued BOQ, letter of acceptance of their proposed work were supposed to

be in writing and that he produced none to support his testimony in court.

In his re-examination he stated that, the he was not asked to tender the said

documents which proves that their company was engaged to construct

plaintiff’s office and that his knowledge of the site can prove to the court

8
that what he testified was nothing but truth. That marked the end of

plaintiff’s case.

On the defence side, Zainabu Pierson Mauya (DW1) being an employee since

2007 as principal Estate Officer testified at length in the attempt to disprove

the plaintiff’s claims. She said, having been charged with duties to manage

land use and buildings as well as responsible for leasing land and building

under Tanzania Porty Authority, was acquainted with defendant’s contractual

relationship with plaintiff. She narrated the procedure for leasing

defendant’s land /premises and buildings which starts with the request letter

from the tenant followed by letter of acceptance of the request from the

defendant before the tenant is issued with letter of offer carrying conditions

to be met her/him including the annual rent rate. Then tenant is required to

respond in writing before she/he is issued with a lease agreement. She went

on to testify that, she knows the Plaintiff as their tenant whom they had

entered into lease agreements for different periods, the last on being of the

year 2015/2016 as the first lease agreement was in 2009/10 renewable every

year until 2016. The tenancy agreement between the plaintiff and defendant

of 2012 (Exhibit DE1) was tendered during her testimony. DW1 also

identified exhibit PE1 as a tenancy agreement for open space at the baggage

9
room, area belonging to the defendant. This witness said, it is one of the

condition in their agreements that, any tenant leasing that premises or part

of it has to erect a structure for his/her use on her own costs and demolish

it after tenancy. Making reference to exhibit DE1, she stated

erection/building costs are borne by the tenant and those terms are

stipulated in the tenancy agreement as it appears in clause 2(4) and 4(a) of

the tenancy agreement. She voiced that, under clause 2(h) exhibit DE1 after

expiry or termination of the contract the tenant has to demolish any structure

on the demised premises at his/her own costs and hand over the clean land

without any claim of costs. In response to the claim of hiked rent rate to

USD 2910 DW1 stated that, in 2017 rent was raised up to USD 15 per square

meter due to increased value of the premises, size of the leased premises

and demand in the market She said, a tenant was charged in USD because

as an authority TPA charges are made in United States Dollars. However the

tenant could pay in Tanzania shillings basing on the prevailing rate of the

date of payment, this witness confirmed. As regard to the relationship with

Plaintiff, she testified the same ended up in the annual year 2015/2016 as

when they offered her the new agreement for 2016/2017, she refused to

sign on assertion that rent had increased. According to her testimony, the

10
rent of USD 15 per square meter was applied to all tenants and they all

signed the agreement except the plaintiff.

When cross examined DW1 stated that, the plaintiff never met her to

negotiate the terms of agreement. Questioned on the process of obtaining

the rent rate before issuing the same to the tenant, she mentioned the same

is issued by the defendant after consultation with Chief Government Valuer

over the leased premises and then the same is communicated to the tenant

on her/his first lease or during renewal of the tenure.

When asked as to why the defendant denied the plaintiff renewal of tenancy

and why increased rent rate, DW1 said in 2017 they issued the plaintiff with

one sided signed agreement for her signature but she refused to sign and

return the copies complaining on the raised rent. DW1 responded further

that, it is the location that increases the land rent as always land appreciates

instead of depreciating. DW1 admitted that they evicted the plaintiff as she

was occupying the premises without valid lease agreement while awaiting

for determination of this case so that she removes her belongs and

demolishes the building on her own costs. As to why removal or demolition

of structures at tenant’s costs, Dw1 said, before erecting the structure on

the premises the tenant has to submit the drawings and BOQ to the TPA for

11
them to evaluate by their engineers as their insistence is on erection of

temporary structures which can be easily demolished or removed. She said

that is because when the premise is required for other uses they would not

compromise with the tenant on reduction of rent as that is the government

authority in which rents are fixed. After several demands to sign the

agreement and pay the due rents without positive response they locked the

plaintiff out as the method of terminating the contract.

When referred to paragraph 5 of exhibit DE1, and asked as to why they did

not issue the defendant with notice of termination of contract, DW1 said the

notice could not be issued as the plaintiff was no longer their tenant for not

renewing the tenancy agreement for more than 7 months.

As alluded to above in the end of defence side evidence both counsel for the

parties requested for court leave to file final written submission, the prayer

which was cordially granted. I appreciate the brief submission from both

parties although I find no need to reproduce them here as I will be referring

them in the course of determining the framed issues. Nevertheless, before

indulging into the duty of determination of the framed issues, I find it

apposite to restate the principles under which this Court will be guided with.

It is well settled principle of law under sections 110 and 111 of the Evidence

12
Act, [Cap. 6 R.E 2019] that, any party who alleges existence of any fact or

claim of right must prove that the same exists and the onus of so proving

lies on the party who would fail if no evidence is adduced at all on claimed

facts or right. It is further trite principle of law under section 2(3) of the

Evidence Act that, the standard of proof in civil matters is on the balance of

probabilities. This settled principle of the law is housed in cases without

numbers of both this Court and Court of Appeal such as decisions in Abdul

Karim Haji Vs. Raymond Nchimbi Alois and Another, Civil Appeal No.

99 of 2004, Anthony M. Masanga Vs. Penina ( Mama mgesi) & Lucia

(Mama Anna), Civil Appeal No.118 of 2014, Paulina Samson Ndawavya

Vs. Theresia Thomasi Madaha, Civil Appeal No. 53 of 2017 and Berelia

Karangirangi Vs. Asteria Nyalwambwa, Civil Appeal No. 237 of 2017

(All CAT- Unreported). The above principles were well put by Court of Appeal

in the case of Paulina Samson Ndawavya (supra) when the Court

observed that:

’’It is trite law and indeed elementary that he who alleges has
a burden of proof as per section 110 of the Evidence act, Cap.
6 [R.E 2002]. It is equally elementary that since the dispute
was in civil case, the standard of proof was on a balance of

13
 probabilities which simply means that the Court will sustain
such evidence which is more credible than the other…’’

Similarly in Berelia Karangirangi (supra) Court of Appeal also had this to

say;

We think it is pertinent to state the principle governing proof

of cases in civil suits. The general rule is that, he who alleges
must prove….it is similar that in civil proceedings, the party
with legal burden also bears the evidential burden and the
standard in each case is on the balance of probabilities.’’
Having settled on the above principle I now turn to consider and answer the

issues. To start with is the first issue as to whether the defendant’s

increase of rent by 485% in the new contract to the plaintiff was

justified in law. For just determination of this issue I wish to revisit first

the law related to leasing of land or landed properties in our country as found

in Part IX of the Land Act, [Cap 113 R.E 2019] (the Land Act). The law under

section 78 of the Act, gives power to the holder of a granted right of

occupancy to lease that right or part of it to any other person for a definite

period or for the life of the lessor subject to the conditions which may be

required under the Act. For easy reference, I quote the provision as

hereunder:

14
 78.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the holder
of a granted right of occupancy may lease that right of
occupancy or part of it to any person for a definite
period or for the life of the lessor or of the lessee or for
a period which though indefinite, may be terminated
by the lessor or the lessee, and subject to any
conditions which may be required by this Act or any
other law applicable to leases or which he may think
fit.

It is common knowledge that such lease will be subjected to a certain

consideration termed rent dully paid to the lessor by the lessee, though the

definition of term ’’rent’’ is not provided under the Act. Mitra’s Legal &

Commercial Dictionary, (2014) 6th Ed by Tapash Gan Choudhury at page

745 defines rent to mean:

’’Consideration paid usually periodically for use or occupancy

of property; a compensation or return made periodically by a
tenant or occupant for the possession and use of lands and
corporeal hereditaments; money, chattels, or services issuing
usually out of lands and tenements as payment for use.’’

Similar definition of the term ’’rent’’ is given by Blacks Law Dictionary, 8th

Ed (2004) by Bryan A. Garner at page 4049 to mean:

15
 ’’Consideration paid, usually periodically, for the use or
occupancy of property’’

Garnered from the above definitions rent is a consideration to the lessor by

the lessee for the use and occupation of the formers property. The same is

paid for the authorised period of occupation and includes charges in

connection with the occupation of the premises such as tax payable to the

Central Government or the corporate authority. See explanations in Mitra’s

Legal & Commercial Dictionary (supra) at page 746. It follows therefore

that any determination or assessment of chargeable rent rate is based on a

number of factors or conditions. In our jurisdiction section 78(3) of the Land

Act provides for the conditions under which rent payable under lease

agreement can be considered or assessed. For the purpose of clarity, the

provision of sec is reproduced hereunder:

78(3) In determining the amount of rent payable under

a lease, regard shall be had to –

(a) size of the land;

(b) use of the land

(c) value of the land as evidenced by leases

in the market in the area where the land

is located;
16
 (d) location of the land; and

(e) condition of the land or building.

Now back to the issue at discussion having considered the oral evidence and

exhibits tendered by both parties it is uncontroverted fact that there existed

lease agreement between the parties from 2009 for a definite period of 12

months subject to renewal each year which lasted 2016. And that under such

tenancy period rent chargeable increased from USD 72 in 2009 to USD 600

2016. It is further undisputed fact that, upon request for renewal of tenancy

agreement for 2017, the plaintiff was informed about an increase of the rent

from USD 600 to USD 2910 per month, the amount she found to be on higher

side hence refused to sign the agreement in return sought for negotiation

on its reduction, the request which was rejected by the defendant. As to why

such huge increase, DW1 stated, the change of rent rate was effected to all

tenants based on the increase of the value of the demised area, increase of

the size of the leased area by the plaintiff as well as the demand which was

also on increase. The plaintiff who was duty bound to prove to the Court on

the balance of probabilities that, the said rent rate was illegally charged did

not counter the defendant’s evidence with regard to the reasons for increase

of the said rent which, I find to be tandem with conditions set under section

17
78(3) of the Land Act, for determination of the amount payable under a

lease. These include the size of land, market value of the land, location and

condition of the land, which Dw1 said all were considered. Further to that

there was unchallenged evidence by DW1 that, the said rent rate of USD

2910 was reached after consultation with the Chief Government valuer, who

valued the land at that time.

The above notwithstanding, I find the lessor being the owner of the demised

premises had all the rights to change the rent. The reasons for such findings

are not far-fetched. One, as it was stated by the defendant’s witness the

value of the land always appreciate and also the market value of the

premises attracts the change of rates to be charged by the lessor. Second,

there is no any clause in the former agreement (exh. DE1) which could

inferred and interpreted against the defendant that, any changes in relation

to the rent before renewal of contract ought be discussed by both parties,

thus limiting the defendant from increasing the rent to be charged. All the

above considered and given the fact that the plaintiff has failed to supply the

court with evidence that, it was mandatory for the defendant to negotiate

with her before raising the rent rate, I find the increase of the said rent to

18
USD 2910 by the defendant was justifiable. Therefore the first issue is

answered in affirmative.

Turning to the second issue which is whether the Plaintiff is entitled to

compensation to the tune of Tshs.238,155,100.08 for the structures

constructed on the leased land under tenancy agreement. It is the principle

of law under section 110(1) and 111 of the Evidence Act, as alluded to above,

that he who alleges must prove the existence of that fact and the onus of so

proving lies on the party who alleges. It is also the trite law that the standard

of proof in all civil cases is on the balance of probabilities. See the cases of

Godfrey Sayi Vs. Anna Siame Mary Mndolwa, Civil Appeal No. 114 of

2012 (CAT-unreported) and Berelia Karangirangi (supra). It was the

plaintiff’s evidence during the trial through PW1 and PW2 that, she had

incurred Tshs. 69,114,950/-as costs for construction of the office on the

demised premises. Mr. Ukwonga for the Plaintiff submits that since the

plaintiff incurred such costs and has been paying rents without default then

she is entitled to compensation as well an unconditional continuation of

tenancy. In their counter submissions the learned State Attorneys are

resisting that assertion for want of evidence as to how such costs was

reached. I am at one with the learned State Attorneys’ proposition that the

19
plaintiff’s claim on the incurred costs for construction of the said office is

wanting in merit. Apart from alleging that in construction of the said office

contractor was engaged neither PW1 nor PW2 tendered any documentary

evidence to justify the asserted costs of Tshs. 69,114,950/- leave alone the

claimed value of the office at Tshs. 238,155,100.08 after construction as

averred in paragraph 6 of the plaint. As that is not enough there is material

contradiction between PW1 and PW2 on the claimed costs incurred during

construction of the ticketing office at the demised premises. While PW1

relying on the BOQ exhibit PE1 says it was Tshs. 238,155,100.08, PW2 on

the other side states it was Tshs. 69,114,950/-. This being material

contradiction goes down to affect the credibility of both witnesses on the

specific amount attained as costs for the construction of the said office.

Hence the claim is not proved.

Even if the costs incurred by the plaintiff in construction of the offices were

established still I could hold she was not entitled to any compensation. I so

hold as there is no any evidence tendered by her to prove that, she is entitled

to be compensated for anything in relation to the complained of lease

agreement. As alluded to above, the last agreement which was subject to

renewal every year expired in 2016 and there was no any claim of breach of

20
such expired agreement during lease period. It follows therefore that, the

relationship between the parties also expired when the lease period expired

and it was upon signing of the new agreement for 2017 when the lessee

would be entitled to claim any right against the defendant. It however not

in dispute that, it is the Plaintiff who is/was not ready to sign the new

contract on assertion that its term on rent is against her favour. Since there

is no any agreement in existence at the time of institution of this case, I find

no any breach of contract which entitles the plaintiff to be compensated the

claimed amount. The Court of Appeal in the case of Zuberi Augustino Vs.

Anicet Mugabe, (1992) TLR 137 at page 139 had this to say on proof of

special damages:

’’It is trite law, and we need not cite any authority, that special damages

must be specifically pleaded and proved.’’

In the matter at hand claimed amount of Tshs.238,155,100.08 alleged to be

the cost incurred in construction of the office space by the plaintiff, is not

only wanting but also unfounded as the same is contradicted by the BOQ

(Exhibit PE1) and the testimony of PW2 who testified the construction was

Tshs. 69,114,950/= and goes against the agreement that existed before

between the parties. second issue is resolved in negative.

21
The third issue which is on whether the plaintiff is entitled to general

damages. The law is settled that general damages are awardable at the

discretion of the Court after consideration and deliberation on the evidence

on record able to justify the award. Although the same are awarded at the

discretion of the Court but the reasons for so awarding must be assigned.

See the case of Alfred Fundi Vs. Geled Mango & others, Civil Appeal

No.49 of 2017.

In this case the Plaintiff also requested for general damages of which the

amount is to be assessed by the Court basing on the adduced evidence. The

purpose of general damages being compensatory in nature is to remedy the

plaintiff from the loss suffered as well as acting as a room for compensation

for the mental pains and sufferings underwent by him/her out of the

defendant’s act or wrong. This was the position of the Court in the case of

P.M. Jonathan Vs. Athuman Khalfan [1980] TLR175 at page 190

Lugakingira J (as he then was) the decision which was cited with approval

by the Court of Appeal in the case of Peter Joseph Kilibika and Another

Vs. Partic Aloyce Mlingi, Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2009 (CAT-unreported),

where the court held that:

22
 “the position as it therefore emerges to me is that general
damages are compensatory in character. They are intended to
take care of the plaintiff’s loss of reputation, as well as to act
as a solarium for mental pain and suffering”.

In this case the Plaintiff’s claim rooted from the increase of rent by the

defendant. As discussed and found above it is the law which empowers the

holder of right of occupancy to lease it and determine the rent basing on the

criteria dictated in section 78(3) of Land Act, the conditions which

undoubtedly were followed by the defendant as already held above. Further

to that the Plaintiff who is obliged to prove the injury she suffered for the

defendant’s act if any failed to discharge that duty as it was held in the case

of Barelia (supra). It is from that failure I find the third issue is answered

in negative, in that the plaintiff is not entitled to general damages.

In addressing the last issue as to what relief the parties are entitled to, the

law is clear under section 110 of the Law of Contract Act, [Cap. 345 R.E

2019] that any agreement is a contract if it is made by the free consent of

parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful

object. That being the position this court finds that, since the Plaintiff opted

not to sign a new lease agreement with the defendant for the year 2017,

this court can neither force her to sign nor force the lessor to negotiate rent

23
is tantamount to doing contrary to section 110 of the law of contact which

requires the contract to be voluntarily entered. In view of the above the

plaintiff deserves nothing than dismissal of his claims for want of merit.

That said and done, this suit is hereby dismissed with costs.

It is so ordered.

DATED at Dar es Salaam this 19th day of August, 2022.

E. E. KAKOLAKI
JUDGE
19/08/2022.
The Judgment has been delivered at Dar es Salaam today 19th day of
August, 2022 in the presence of Ms. Nuru Jamal, advocate for the Plaintiff,
and Mr. Asha Livanga, Court clerk and in the absence of for the Defendant.
Right of Appeal explained.

E. E. KAKOLAKI
JUDGE
19/08/2022.

24