KillBait - News highlights delivered clearly and responsibly—no clickbait, no sensationalism
High Court rejects Sh528m compensation case against Tanzania Airports Authority over KIA land dispute
Photo: The Citizen
2026-05-28 17:30   Justice   10

High Court rejects Sh528m compensation case against Tanzania Airports Authority over KIA land dispute

The High Court in the Arusha Sub-Registry has dismissed a compensation lawsuit filed by Kibo Poultry Unit Limited against the Tanzania Airports Authority (TAA), which was seeking over Sh528.7 million in relation to land located at Samaria village in Arumeru District, near Kilimanjaro International Airport (KIA).

The case was heard and determined by Justice Dafina Ndumbaro, who ruled that the company failed to prove lawful ownership of the disputed land and was therefore not entitled to compensation for the land itself.

The company had claimed it held a customary title issued in 2016 for 48 acres of land allegedly purchased from a local family, and valued its total claim at over Sh582 million.It argued that it had only been compensated Sh2.57 million and demanded additional payment based on a revised valuation.

However, TAA opposed the claim, stating that the area has been part of government land reserved for KIA development since 1969 and was later formalised under a government title deed issued in 2006 covering more than 11,000 hectares.

During proceedings, witnesses testified that the claimant’s customary title had been issued in error due to encroachment and lack of disclosure of existing government ownership.

A court site visit conducted on April 30, 2026, revealed only a partially completed well valued at around Sh1 million, with no evidence supporting claims of tree investments or other developments worth millions.The court concluded that Kibo Poultry Unit Limited failed to establish a valid chain of ownership linking it to lawful original landowners.It further held that any compensation already received was only for improvements made on encroached government land, not for ownership rights.The suit was dismissed in its entirety, with the company ordered to pay legal costs.

Full reading at The Citizen

2186 
Top Trends
Topics
Top visited