THE Court of Appeal has refused to order the Zanzibar government to pay compensation of more than 6bn/- to an owner of a tourist hotel in the Island after revoking a plot offered to him for investment along beach areas.
Instead, a panel led by Chief Justice Mohamed Chande Othman and Justices Nathalia Kimaro and Kipenka Mussa, ordered the Zanzibar Attorney General to allocate the Executive Director with Golden Sands Hotel Limited, Zanzibar, an alternative plot for building a hotel, as promised earlier.
The panel reached such a decision after partly allowing the appeal lodged by the appellant against the Zanzibar Attorney General and Union Trust Resort Limited, who was second respondent in the appeal, which sought to challenge findings of the High Court of Zanzibar at Vuga.
They found no reason to fault the findings by the trial judge, who held the witnesses and assessed their credibility that the Attorney General had justifiable reasons to revoke the lease agreement but the appellant was entitled to be heard on the matter before reaching such decision.“We need to emphasize here that the right to be heard before someone’s right is determined as a vital component in the administration of justice and the rule of law.
This right is recognised in the Constitution of Zanzibar 1984, Article 12 (1),” the panel said. According to the justices, the article says that all persons are equal before the law, meaning that someone’s right should not be determined without affording him or her opportunity to be heard on that particular right.
It is a universally recognised right embodied in various human rights instruments. It was alleged during the trial that on May 16, 1997, the government of Zanzibar granted to the appellant a 33 year lease over piece of land described as Site Plan No. 275/97 situated at Matemwe Northern Region of Zanzibar.
The purpose of the lease was construction of a hotel complex. Prior to the government granting the lease to the appellant, on April 14, 1997, the Executive Secretary of Zanzibar Tourist Commission approved the appellant’s hotel plan project.
The approval had ten conditions that the appellant had to comply with. Approval documents specifically mentioned that failure to comply with the conditions entitled the Commission to revoke the project.
The appellant failed to comply with the conditions and the Commission revoked the project approval. The revocation of the project approval was done on November 28, 2003. Subsequently, on December 24, 2003, the Ministry of Water, Construction Energy and Lands revoked the lease agreement.
After the revocation of the lease agreement the appellant filed the suit in question. He demanded re-instatement of the project plus compensation of 2.5bn/- or be offered an alternative land plus compensation of 4bn/- or alternatively he be given cash compensation of 6bn/-.
In his judgment, the High Court Judge Abraham Mwampashi ruled that the revocation was justified as the appellant had violated the given conditions and that he was entitled to compensation of only 28m/-
The panel reached such a decision after partly allowing the appeal lodged by the appellant against the Zanzibar Attorney General and Union Trust Resort Limited, who was second respondent in the appeal, which sought to challenge findings of the High Court of Zanzibar at Vuga.
They found no reason to fault the findings by the trial judge, who held the witnesses and assessed their credibility that the Attorney General had justifiable reasons to revoke the lease agreement but the appellant was entitled to be heard on the matter before reaching such decision.“We need to emphasize here that the right to be heard before someone’s right is determined as a vital component in the administration of justice and the rule of law.
This right is recognised in the Constitution of Zanzibar 1984, Article 12 (1),” the panel said. According to the justices, the article says that all persons are equal before the law, meaning that someone’s right should not be determined without affording him or her opportunity to be heard on that particular right.
It is a universally recognised right embodied in various human rights instruments. It was alleged during the trial that on May 16, 1997, the government of Zanzibar granted to the appellant a 33 year lease over piece of land described as Site Plan No. 275/97 situated at Matemwe Northern Region of Zanzibar.
The purpose of the lease was construction of a hotel complex. Prior to the government granting the lease to the appellant, on April 14, 1997, the Executive Secretary of Zanzibar Tourist Commission approved the appellant’s hotel plan project.
The approval had ten conditions that the appellant had to comply with. Approval documents specifically mentioned that failure to comply with the conditions entitled the Commission to revoke the project.
The appellant failed to comply with the conditions and the Commission revoked the project approval. The revocation of the project approval was done on November 28, 2003. Subsequently, on December 24, 2003, the Ministry of Water, Construction Energy and Lands revoked the lease agreement.
After the revocation of the lease agreement the appellant filed the suit in question. He demanded re-instatement of the project plus compensation of 2.5bn/- or be offered an alternative land plus compensation of 4bn/- or alternatively he be given cash compensation of 6bn/-.
In his judgment, the High Court Judge Abraham Mwampashi ruled that the revocation was justified as the appellant had violated the given conditions and that he was entitled to compensation of only 28m/-
/Daily News.
No comments :
Post a Comment