FORTUNATUS LWANYANTIKA MASHA AND ANOTHER V. CLAVER MOTORS LIMITED, HIGH COURT, MWANZA (2019)

Sh 15,000.00

Category:

Description

Sale of land to a foreign company – rescission of a sale of land agreement executor contract – Tanzania Investment Centre (TIC) – transfer of a right of occupancy to a non-citizen – for purposes of investment – statutory interpretation –the policy of the Tanzanian Investment Act – restrictions on ownership of land by non-citizens – procedure under Section 48 of the Land Act.

The plaintiff sold land to a foreign company and later he resold the same land to another person. Subsequently, the plaintiff sought to rescind a sale of land agreement since the purchaser (a Rwandan company) was not eligible to own land in Tanzania. The defendant argued that the agreement is valid since the transfer process was not complete making the contract executory and since the transfer process would involve the Tanzania Investment Centre (TIC) according to law. It was held that;

  • Transfer of a right of occupancy to a non-citizen is not illegal as long as it is intended for purposes of investment as may be approved by the Tanzania Investment Center (pp. 13-14).
  • Statutory interpretation – the Court considered the policy of the Tanzanian Investment Act which is to attract investments by facilitating investors. The restrictions on ownership of land by non-citizens must be construed within that policy objective together with the objectives of the Land Act (pp. 17 – 18).
  • Transfer of land to a non-citizen only becomes illegal after the commissioner follows the procedure under Section 48 of the Land Act and finds that the transfer to the non-citizen has contravened the provisions of sections 19 and 20 or any other law (18).
  • The court refused to nullify a sale of land agreement to a foreign company because the land was for purposes of investments under the TIC, the agreement was executory, the investment was subject to TIC’s approval which would determine the fate of the agreement (p. 23). Another reason is that the seller frustrated the sale by not availing the purchaser the title deed for which he would execute the transfer (p. 24).