How former DART compensation claimant lost Court of Appeal case

The High Court dismissed his suit with costs after finding that he had received full compensation for the entire 1,632-square-metre property.

It further ruled that ownership of the land had lawfully vested in DART upon payment of compensation.

The Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on Friday, July 3, 2026, through a panel comprising Justices Zephrine Galeba, Dr Paul Kihwelo and Latifa Alhinai Mansoor. The ruling was later published on the Judiciary website.

After reviewing the record, grounds of appeal and submissions from both parties, the appellate court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's judgment in Land Case No. 1 of 2020.

The court also ordered Mr Mlingi to pay appeal costs to the first through fifth respondents, excluding the sixth respondent.

Background to the dispute

Mr Mlingi owned Plots Nos. 491/1 and 493/1, Block A, measuring 1,632 square metres, which he purchased in 2000.

During the first phase of the DART project involving the expansion of Morogoro Road from Kimara to Kivukoni, the government acquired the property for public use.

Following valuation, Mr Mlingi received Sh196.95 million in compensation from DART.

The payment covered the value of the land, an unfinished building, a boundary fence and statutory allowances. However, Mlingi maintained that the compensation related only to part of the property, insisting he remained the lawful owner of the remaining section.

He subsequently sued in the High Court, seeking declarations that he retained ownership of the land, an order restraining his eviction and additional compensation. The High Court dismissed the case, prompting the present appeal.

Grounds of appeal

Before the Court of Appeal, Mr Mlingi advanced nine grounds of appeal, arguing that the High Court erred in finding he had been compensated for the entire 1,632-square-metre property when, in his view, the payment covered only part of it.

He argued that evidence, including demolition markings on the building, the Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) and other documents, demonstrated that only part of the building had been affected by the DART project.

He further faulted the High Court for relying primarily on the compensation schedule while disregarding other evidence.

He also challenged the credibility of government witnesses, arguing that their testimony was inconsistent and contradictory.

Respondents' arguments

The first to fifth respondents were represented by three advocates led by Principal State Attorney Camilius Ruhinda, who argued that Mr Mlingi was bound by his pleadings, which acknowledged that the property measured 1,632 square metres.

State Attorney Ruhinda submitted that the compensation form, produced as Exhibit D-1 and signed by Mr Mlingi, clearly confirmed payment of Sh196.95 million for the entire property together with all existing developments.

He further argued that the valuation had been approved by the Chief Government Valuer in accordance with the law, whereas Mr Mlingi's private valuation lacked such approval and therefore carried no legal weight.

He also maintained that government witnesses gave consistent evidence showing that the entire property was acquired because retaining the remaining portion would have posed safety concerns once the DART project was implemented.

He urged the court to dismiss the appeal and uphold the High Court's judgment.

Court's findings

Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Mansoor said the court had carefully examined the record, documentary exhibits and submissions before concluding that Mr Mlingi had received full compensation for the entire 1,632-square-metre property and all existing developments.

She said Exhibit D-1, signed by Mr Mlingi, unequivocally confirmed that the compensation covered the entire property together with every development standing on it.

The court further found that the valuation had been duly approved by the Chief Government Valuer as required by law and noted that Mr Mlingi had accepted the compensation without first challenging the valuation.

It also held that his continued payment of land rent after receiving compensation could not revive or preserve any ownership rights over the acquired property.

The judges agreed with the High Court that the government witnesses' evidence was consistent and established that acquisition of the entire property was necessary because of safety concerns affecting the remaining section of the building following implementation of the project.

"The appellant cannot be declared the lawful owner of land for which he has already received full compensation. To do so would amount to unjust enrichment, which is not permitted by law," the judgment states.

For those reasons, the Court of Appeal held that the High Court had properly evaluated the evidence and correctly applied the law. It consequently dismissed the appeal in its entirety, upheld the High Court's judgment and ordered Mr Mlingi to pay appeal costs to the first through fifth respondents.