Arusha. The Court of Appeal has set aside a ruling of the High Court Commercial Division that had allowed Ruaha Concrete Company Limited to register an arbitration award worth more than $1.19 million against the Tanzania National Roads Agency (Tanroads) Kagera, citing breach of the right to be heard.
The appellate court held that the High Court failed to accord both parties a fair hearing and ordered that the matter be reheard afresh before a different judge.
The ruling, delivered on Friday, May 15, 2026, was issued by a panel of three justices: Shaban Lila, Sam Rumanyika, and Latifa Mansoor, and is available on the judiciary’s online portal.
Civil Appeal No 565 of 2024 was filed by the Tanroads Kagera Regional Manager.
The Court of Appeal found that the High Court erred by granting an application for extension of time to register the arbitration award without first hearing submissions from both parties.
The dispute arises from an arbitration award issued on September 28, 2005, by arbitrator Kesogukelwele Msita, which ordered Tanroads Kagera to pay the company $1.19 million for breach of a road construction contract.
A corrected award was issued on April 13, 2006, after a calculation error was identified.
Court records show the award was filed for registration on September 5, 2006, but Tanroads objected because it had been lodged out of time. In 2013, the High Court agreed and set aside the award.
The matter later reached the Court of Appeal, which in Civil Appeal No 115 of 2017 also held that the award had been filed beyond the six-month statutory limit under the Arbitration Act and Limitation of Actions legislation.
In 2022, the company returned to the High Court seeking an extension of time to register the award.
Tanroads raised preliminary objections, including lack of jurisdiction, abuse of court process, and res judicata.
Although the High Court directed that both the objections and the main application be heard together, only the preliminary objections were argued on the hearing date.
Despite this, on August 29, 2023, the High Court ruled that prior settlement discussions had revived the limitation period and allowed the application to proceed.
Dissatisfied, Tanroads appealed, arguing it had been denied the right to be heard on the substantive application.
Senior State Attorney Rehema Mtulya submitted that the High Court determined the matter without giving parties an opportunity to respond, violating the right to a fair hearing.
The company, however, argued that Tanroads had admitted the existence of the debt and that the court could rely on such an admission under the Civil Procedure Rules.
The Court of Appeal rejected the argument, stating that the alleged admission did not address the key issue of extension of time for registration of the award.
Justice Latifa Mansoor held that while Tanroads acknowledged the existence of the arbitration award, it did not consent to the extension sought.
The court emphasised that the principles of natural justice require all parties to be heard before any decision affecting their rights is made.
It further ruled that the High Court should have fully heard the main application together with the preliminary objections before deciding.
The Court of Appeal set aside the High Court ruling and ordered the matter to be reheard urgently by a different judge. Costs were ordered to follow the outcome of the fresh proceedings.
Register to begin your journey to our premium contentSubscribe for full access to premium content
