How the Tanzanian govt won Sh1bn fishing nets lawsuit

Ms Halari claimed that on February 20, 2017, armed officers identifying themselves as fisheries officers entered her premises, broke open a container, and seized 146 bags containing fishing nets worth Sh422.9 million.

The nets were taken to the Chang’ombe Police Station without charges of illegal fishing, leading her to argue that the seizure was unlawful.

In case number 173 of 2023, Ms Halari sought compensation for the seized nets, interest totalling Sh515.8 million, and Sh100 million in damages.

The minister and Attorney General denied any wrongdoing, stating that Imara Fish Net Company had unlawfully imported fishing nets, which were stored in 133 bags, all of which exceeded the legal limit of three inches.

They also referred to an ongoing criminal case against Ms Halari at the Kisutu Magistrates' Court.

Ms Halari’s case was based on her testimony, which stated that the fisheries officers had raided her warehouse in 2017 and seized the nets.

She was arrested on suspicion of possessing illegal fishing nets but claimed the charges were later dropped or dismissed.

The nets, valued between Sh400 million and Sh500 million, were held at Chang’ombe Police Station.

Ms Halari provided documents related to criminal case number 86 of 2017, which confirmed that officers had visited her warehouse on February 20, 2017.However, she failed to provide direct proof of ownership of the nets.

Government defence

The defence, represented by State Attorneys Pantaleo Urassa, Lilian Mirumbe, and Salehe Manoro, called four witnesses: Dickson Kasoki, Godfrey Banduka, Palaha Bulongo, and Assistant Police Inspector Juma Hebu.

They testified that on February 20, 2017, a search at the Chamazi warehouse of Imara Fish Net Company led to the seizure of nets below the legal three-inch size.

It was also noted that Ms Halari was not registered as a fishing net trader.

Court ruling Judge Kirekiano noted that Ms Halari’s main allegation was that the defendants had unlawfully seized her fishing nets.

He acknowledged that the defendants had the authority to enforce laws regarding the importation, storage and use of fishing nets and that for nets to be lawful, they must comply with legal requirements.

“The defendants claim the nets were below the legal size and that they belonged to Imara Fish Net Company,” the judge said.

“It is not disputed that the nets were seized, but the claimant bears the burden of proving her case,” she added.

The judge stated that Ms Halari’s case had been negatively impacted by the defendant’s failure to address the status of the criminal charges against her.

However, he ruled that the seizure of the nets was not unlawful, as the criminal case against her had been dismissed.

Further, the judge pointed out that Ms Halari had failed to prove ownership of the nets, as they were the property of Imara Fish Net Company.

As a result, she was not authorised to file the lawsuit in her name.

Based on these findings, the judge dismissed the case and all associated claims, ordering Ms Halari to cover the legal costs.