IN THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA

JUDICIARY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA
MBEYA DISTRICT REGISTRY
AT MBEYA
LAND CASE NO 06 OF 2019

CHARLES ANTHONY MREMA (As Administrator of the

VERSUS
NATIONAL RANCHING COMPANY LTD........................ DEFENDANT
Date of the Last Order: 01/09/2021
Date of the Judgment; 20/10/2021

JUDGMENT

NPUNGURU, J.

The Plaintiff being the administrator of the estates of the late Hon.

Judge Anthony Mrema filed his claim against the defendant praying for this

court to issue the following orders as can be prefaced as follows;

(i) A declaration that the Plaintiff is the lawful lessee on Farm No.

721/4 Usangu Ranch, Mbaraii District within Mbeya Region.

(ii) That the Defendant's intention and or threats to evict the

Plaintiff from the said Farm is unjustifiable, illegal, inoperative

and null and void.

Page 1 of 11
 (Hi) The defendant's act of increasing rent repeatedly is null and

void and a frustration to the Plaintiff.

(iv) The defendant act of advertising and offering a bid to the

alleged plot to other investor is illogical and unlawful.

(v) That the defendant be restrained from breaching and or acting

contrary to the terms of the contract

(vi) A declaratory order to restrain the defendant not to disturb the

Plaintiff from quietly commercially developing and enjoying the

subleased Farm No. 721/4

(vii) That the defendant to pay compensation to the Plaintiff for the

already developed, genera! damages, costs of the suit and

other reliefs the court may deem fit to grant.

The Defendant denied the Plaintiff's claim. He however filed his counter

claim against the Plaintiffs stating that the claim against the defendant is

for payment of rent arrears if Tsh 37,711,739.50 plus interest at the

commercial rate from the date due of payment of rent to the date of filing

the suit and interest from the filing of the suit to the date of judgment.

However, during the hearing of the counter claim, Mr. Tibaijuka prayed to

withdraw counter claim of which the court marked the same as withdrawn.

Page 2 of 11
 In this case, Mr. Timetheo Nichombe, the learned counsel appeared for

the Plaintiff whereas, Mr. Bwire, the senior legal officer, and later Mr.

Rojas Francis and Mr. Tibaijuka, the learned state attorneys joined the race

to representing the Defendant. Before going through the nuts and bolts of

the case at hand, I find it overbearing to narrate, albeit briefly, the material

background facts that led the Plaintiff to channel his claim against the

defendant. It is somehow not complicated. From the record, it appears that

the Plaintiff and the Defendant had their lease agreement dated 29th day of

June, 2009 to last for 33 years. The defendant for reasons not stipulated in

the agreement and not communicated to the Plaintiff, has repeatedly on

various dates varied lease agreement. What irked the Plaintiff most is that

the defendant without notice to terminate, required the Plaintiff to treat the

former lease agreement as terminated and sign a new contract unilaterally

drafted by the defendant. The record shows that the Defendant in 2018

issued a letter to all who leased at Narcos ranches. A meeting was

conveyed between the Defendant and all those who leased at Narco

ranches discussing about the unilaterally raised rent. That's not enough, it

appears that on 15th day of March, 2019, the defendant through various

media, the defendant issued a public notice to invite other members who

are interested in commercial livestock keeping to apply to the defendant

Page 3 of 11
for allocation of ranched blocks. The Plaintiff was of the view that the

defendant actions are not in line with the lease agreement as it was made

without good cause and without the consent of the Plaintiff has frustrated

and diminished the plaintiff's peaceful enjoyment and efficient investment

on the farm.

The Plaintiff was of the view that the defendant action will make the

Plaintiff to suffer irreparable loss of his cattle to wit 746 heads of cows, 127

goats, beehives and will pay enormous compensation to employee's

subjected to retrenchment unless the defendant's act is declared void and

nullity. He prayed for the court to order the Defendant to pay Tsh

1000,000,000/= as general damages.

When the matter was coming for hearing, both sides had only one

witness each. The Plaintiff in his sworn testimony informed the court that

being the son and the administrator of the estate of the late Judge Mrema

was duty bound to take care of the livestock's. He produced Form No IV

which was admitted by the court as Exh Pl. He went on to state that the

allocated ranch is located at Mbaraii District at Plot No 721/4 owned by

Narco with 3380.501 hectares which is equivalent to 8,353.39 acres. It was

his further contention that the farm contains different animals that includes

Page 4 of 11
cows, goats and ships. PW1 further informed the court that the said ranch

was leased by his father with 33 years lease agreement. The leased

agreement was tendered in court and was admitted as Exhibit P2.

It appears that the lease agreement was entered in 2009 to end up in

2042. According to PW1, the rent can be changed after every five years

but the defendant didn't honor the agreement by unilaterally changing the

rate against to what has been stipulated in clause five of the agreement.

PW1 added that the defendant has changed the rent between 2012-2013,

2015-2016 and in 2018-2019 contrary to what has been agreed in the

leased agreement. The Plaintiff went on to state that the defendant served

them with the new agreement which requires them to pay the new rent

contrary to the lease agreement entered in 2009. The said draft was not

signed by the Plaintiff as it contains different terms.

When cross examined by Mr. Tibaijuka, PW1 insisted that he didn't sign

the second lease agreement as it bears different terms contrary to the first

agreement signed. He added that they filed an injunction that is why they

are still at the disputed leased area. IT was his further contention that the

major dispute which arose in this case is the high rent imposed by the

defendant.

Page 5 of 11
 In his defense, Mr. Bwire Kafumu Mujaruba in his sworn testimony

informed the court that being the production and operation manager at

NARCO was duty bound to follow the claims marshaled by the Plaintiff that

they have increased rent contrary the agreement. He went on to state that

the lessor has the duty to collect revenue and supervise investors while the

duty of the lessee is to pay the rent. He formed an opposite camp with the

Plaintiff that the procedure used in increasing rent was due to the

consultation made with investors through UWARATA and it was due to

prevailed investment circumstances. DW1 added that the rent was

increased procedurally within five years to 1500 but was later reduced to

1000/= since the new rent proposal was not accepted by investors. DW1

was of the further view that the rent increased depends on the size of the

plot given to the investors. He persuaded the court to ignore the Plaintiff

claim and dismiss the matter,

The court after having gone through the records and the evidence from

both parties, I find it prudent to refer the issues raised during final Pre-

Trial Conference;

1 Whether there is breach of the /ease agreement by the defendant

2 To what reliefs are the parties entitled

Page 6 of 11
 Embarking on the first issue raised, I would like to seek indulgence in

the Law of Contract Act Cap 345 under Section 73(1) which provides as

follows;

"When a contact has been broken, the party who suffers by

such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has

broken contract, compensation for any loss or damage

caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual

course of things from such breach, or which the parties

knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result

from breach of it"

Having grasped the above cited provision, the ball is now in my hand

to narrow down non-contentious issues as stated interlia. It is not in

dispute that the parties had entered into lease agreement together to last

for 33 years from 2009 wit Title No 13957 MBYLR Farm No 721/4 Usangu

Ranch, Mbaraii District, Mbeya Region that contains 3,380.50 hectares of

Land. It is further not disputed that the Lessor can increase rent after

every five years and has to be in writing six months in advance before the

expiry of the lease agreement as stipulated under Clause B (5) of the Lease

Agreement.as allured herein above, the Plaintiff is not disputing the terms

Page 7 of 11
of the contract, but rather the breach of the agreement by the defendant

by having increased the rent and also by having initiated another leased

agreement while the former is still valid.

It is settled that parties are bound by the agreements they have

freely entered into and this is the cardinal principle of the Law of Contract.

In other words, this is termed as sanctity of contract as lucidly stated in

Simon Kichele Chaha V Aveline M. Kilawe, Civil Appeal No. 160 of

2018, CAT at Mwanza (unreported) quoted with approval the case of

Alibhai Aziz V Bhatia Borthers Ltd [2000]. T.L.R 288 at page 289

where it was observed that;

"The principle of sanctity of contract is consistently reluctant

to admit excuses for non-performance where there is no

incapacity, no fraud (actual or constructive) or

misrepresentation and no principle of public policy

prohibiting enforcement"

Taking into consideration the spirit of this principle and being mindful

of the contents of Exhibit P2, I have the confidence to state that the

Defendants move to increased rent and to ignore the life span of Exhibit P2

which is 33 years amounts to a breach of contract. I am reluctant to accept

Page 8 of 11
the defendant's version that their move to increase rent was subject to the

consent from UWARATA. There is no gainsaying that the contract entered

between the Plaintiff and the Defendant had all attributes of being a valid

contract. There is no clause that allows the Defendant to vary the clause

without written notice within the prescribed time. I wish to emphasize that

since the terms of the lease agreement are clear, it was wrong for the

Defendant to ignore the existing contract and tried to make it public that

the allocated ranches are free to new investors.

I am alive that since at the time when the parties signed their

contract, they were free and of sound mind, therefore they are duty bound

to adhere and fulfil the terms and conditions stipulated in their lease

agreement. Now therefore since the evidence established that the

Defendants have breached the lease agreement dated 29th day of June

2009, the court cannot let the defendant walk free hence must bear the

consequences.

In the circumstances, I hereby issue the following orders in favor of the

Plaintiff as follows;

• The Plaintiff is declared as the lawful lessee on Farm No. 721/4

Usangu Ranch, Mbarali District within Mbeya Region hence any

Page 9 of 11
attempt or intention or threats to evict the Plaintiff from the

said Farm is unjustifiable, illegal, inoperative and null and void

The defendant's act of increasing rent repeatedly is null and

void and a frustration to the Plaintiff

The defendant's act of advertising and offering a bid to the

alleged plot to other investor is illogical and unlawful.

That the defendants are restrained from breaching and or

acting contrary to the terms of the contract

That the defendant is restrained from disturbing the Plaintiff

from quietly commercially developing and enjoying the

subleased Farm No. 721/4

That I grant no damages on the ground that during all the time

while the parties were at antagonism state the plaintiff was still

in occupation of the said premises conducting his activities.

The Plaintiff is entitled to his costs.

It is so ordered.

D.B NDUNGURU

JUDGE
23/09/2021

Page 10 of 11
Right of appeal detailed.

D.B NDUNGURU

JUDGE

23/09/2021

Page 11 of 11