High Court orders Tanzania airports body DG removed in landmark land dispute

It upheld the government’s argument that the Tanzania Airports Authority (TAA) Director General was not the proper legal defendant, ordering that his name be removed and replaced with TAA.

However, the court rejected the government’s request to remove the fourth defendant, saying the matter requires detailed evidence regarding the legal status of the Kilimanjaro International Airport Development Company (Kadco) and cannot be decided through a preliminary objection.

The ruling was issued on Wednesday, January 14, 2026, by Judge Adrian Kilimi, who is presiding over land case number 30928/2024, filed by 30 citizens against the TAA Director General, the Kilimanjaro Regional Commissioner, the Commissioner for Lands, the Kadco Director General, the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Transport, and the Attorney General.

The 30 plaintiffs are residents of Sanya, Mtakuja, and Tindigani villages in Hai District, Kilimanjaro Region.

The decision followed a hearing on a preliminary objection filed by the defendants.

After hearing arguments from both sides, the judge upheld part of the objection, ruling that the TAA Director General was not the correct defendant and that the Authority itself should be sued instead.

Case background

The plaintiffs sued various government institutions and officials, seeking recognition as the rightful owners of the land they have long inhabited.

They alleged that the government seized the land without their consent and that they endured physical and psychological abuse in attempts to evict them.

Among their claims, they sought a court order to prevent eviction, recognition that titles issued to some defendants were illegally granted, and compensation for the hardships suffered.

Preliminary objections

After the case was filed, the defendants submitted a preliminary objection questioning the case’s legality.

Their main argument was that the plaintiffs had sued the TAA Director General and Kadco Director General personally, rather than the institutions, which is legally recognised.

Government lawyer Ms Gloria Issangya said that under the Tanzania Airports Authority Act No. 8 of 2024, only TAA has the legal capacity to sue or be sued, not the Director General personally.

She argued that naming the officials rendered the case defective and requested its dismissal with costs.

The plaintiffs, represented by lawyers John Lairumbe and Joseph Melau, opposed the objection, arguing that preliminary objections should focus strictly on legal points without requiring evidence.

They said the government’s argument necessitated examining facts about the defendants’ legal status, which is not allowed at this stage.

They also noted that even if there were procedural defects in naming the defendants, the law allows the court to correct them rather than dismiss the entire case.

Judge’s ruling

Judge Kilimi said that, after considering arguments from both sides, he agreed with the plaintiffs’ lawyers that the preliminary objection required evidence to establish whether the cited legal provisions applied and whether the first and fourth defendants fell under TAA.

He explained that a preliminary objection must have a legal basis capable of disposing of the case without examining facts.

In this matter, the objection relied on the Tanzania Airports Authority Act No. 8/2024.

The judge confirmed he had reviewed the Act, signed by the President on October 2, 2024, and published in the Government Gazette on October 11, 2024, confirming it is valid law.

According to the Act, the Authority alone can sue or be sued, and this power is not delegated to the Director General.

The court therefore agreed that the TAA Director General had been improperly joined as a defendant.

Instead of dismissing the case, it exercised powers under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules to remove the Director General and add the Tanzania Airports Authority as a defendant.

Regarding the fourth defendant (Kadco Director General), the court ruled that whether he should be sued personally or the company itself requires a detailed factual and legal investigation, which cannot be resolved through a preliminary objection.

The objection, therefore, lacked grounds regarding the fourth defendant, as it was based solely on law.

“In this matter, I find that the preliminary objection has merit to the extent indicated above. Costs will be addressed in the main case,” the judge concluded, allowing the main case to proceed following the ruling.