Mwalusanya, J.: The respondent Daniel s/o Sekao is a lawful owner of a plot No. 25 BK 'R' along Uhuru Street in Bukoba Township. He has a right of occupancy C L.O.S.215/76 of 18/1/1985 for 99 years as evidenced in Title deed No.003008/33 of 29/1/1987. He has a building permit of 1/2/1986 issued by the appellant; and pursuant to that permit, the respondent began to develop his land in early 1986.
On 25/4/1987 the appellant, the Town Director of Bukoba Township, wrote a letter to D the respondent ordering him to stop developing the plot in question on the ground that the Town Authority intended to apply to the President to revoke the right of occupancy in question. It is said that the Town Aurthority has earmarked the plot in question as a E recreation ground or something to that effect. However the respondent successfully challenged the 'stop order' in question in the lower court. Aggrieved by the decision of the lower court, the Town Director of Bukoba Township has now appealed to this Court.
At the hearing of the appeal Mr. Rutakolezibwa Counsel for the Town Director F produced a letter in Court (Exh. A dated 9/1/1988) from the Ministry of Lands headquarters, signed by one Mr. Mango on behalf of the Director of Town Planning, purporting to revoke the right of occupancy granted to the respondent.
Even if the said Director of Town Planning had a right of revocation of a right of G occupancy, still this would not be of any assistance to the Town Director as, on 25/4/1987 when the stop order was issued, there was no revocation yet of the right of occupancy. So obviously the trial court was right to hold that the Town Director had no right to issue the stop order of development of the plot owned by the respondent. The H Town Director's order was rightly vacated.
But even then, the purported revocation of the right of occupancy by the Director of Town Planning made on 9/1/1988 is obviously null and void, as the said officer has no I power to make a revocation. That power of revocation of occupancy is vested in the
A President of the United Republic of Tanzania as provided under s.10 of the Land Ordinance Cap 113 and the President has to do so for a good cause. And the revocation order has to be published in the Government Gazette if it has to have any force of law. Counsel for the Town Director Mr. Ruta conceded that much, at the hearing of the B appeal.
Therefore so far the respondent is entitled and empowered to develop the land in question. Once the revocation is done by a lawful authority, then the development will cease, and the respondent will be paid compensation for all the unexhausted C improvements he has carried on the land. The ball is in the court of the Town Director to move the President for a revocation. But it will be invidious to accede to a prayer for a stop order of develpment of the land, when we do not know that the revocation will ever take effect. This court will not act on conjecture and speculation. In the event the appeal D is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
E