Tanzania Court Orders Police, Power Firm to Pay US$245,000 for Seized Goods
TANZANIA · COURTS
Key Facts
- —The country Tanzania is an East African nation on the Indian Ocean. Dar es Salaam is its largest city, main port and business centre.
- —What happened A Tanzania court ordered the police chief and state power firm Tanesco to pay a company 646 million shillings (US$244,562).
- —Why Police seized 57 items of electrical equipment from the company in 2006. The court found they were never all returned.
- —The award 596.07 million shillings (US$225,635) for the missing goods, 50 million shillings (US$18,927) in damages, plus costs and 7% yearly interest.
- —Who pays The police chief and Tanesco are jointly and severally liable, so the company can collect the full sum from either of them.
- —What it means for you Firms can win against state bodies in Tanzania, but this claim took 20 years from seizure to judgment.
- —Still open Either side may still appeal to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania. Whether the police or Tanesco will do so is not known.
A Tanzania court has ordered the police chief and the state power company to pay a local firm 646 million shillings (US$244,562). The money covers electrical equipment that police seized in 2006 and did not return in full, plus damages.
Judge Hamidu Mwanga of the High Court in Dar es Salaam signed the judgment on 24 September 2026. It appeared on Saturday 3 October on TanzLII, the public online library of Tanzanian court rulings.
What the Court Ordered
The Tanzania court ruling makes two public bodies pay. One is the Inspector General of Police (IGP), the head of the national police force.
The other is Tanesco, the Tanzania Electric Supply Company. It is the state power utility and one of the bodies listed under the Ministry of Energy.
They must pay 596,070,982 shillings (US$225,635), the value of electrical materials, equipment and tools that were never returned. They must also pay 50 million shillings (US$18,927) in general damages and the company’s legal costs.
The sum carries interest of 7% a year from the date of judgment until it is paid in full. Conversions in this article use about 2,642 shillings to the US dollar, the rate on 6 October 2026.
The two are liable jointly and severally, so the company can collect the whole award from either one. The company is Future Century Limited, which the judgment describes as a firm doing business in Dar es Salaam.
How a 2006 Police Raid Became a 20-Year Case
The dispute began on 13 and 14 July 2006, when police searched Future Century’s premises in Mikocheni, in Dar es Salaam. Officers acted on information that the company held electrical materials and tools believed to have been stolen from Tanesco.
Police arrested one of the company’s directors and seized 57 items, according to certificates of seizure produced in court. The company says police later found too little evidence to charge it or its director, and closed the file.
The goods were kept at Tanesco’s premises in Mikocheni. At a handover there on 18 January 2012, the company says, only 13 of the 57 items came back.
Future Century first sued in 2012, but the High Court struck that case out on 14 November 2014. It filed again in 2018 as Civil Case No. 5 of 2018.
The new case named the IGP, the permanent secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Attorney General as defendants. Tanesco was joined as a third party because the goods had been stored on its premises.
Why the Judge Sided With the Company
Before the Tanzania court, the state’s lawyers accepted that the search and seizure took place. They argued that every item was handed back after the investigation and denied responsibility for any missing goods.
A Tanesco stores officer testified that the goods were stored at the utility and that he helped with the 2012 handover. But the verification report drawn up at that handover listed only 13 items.
The judge said that if everything had been returned, the evidence should show how the 57 seized items matched the items released. No such match was shown, and the defendants did not account for the goods item by item.
He found, on the balance of probabilities, that the goods taken by the police were not returned in full. That is the standard of proof in civil cases.
The defence also questioned the company’s price quotes, which were dated 28 May 2012, months after the handover. The judge held that this alone did not make them fabricated.
He awarded general damages for the inconvenience and loss of use caused by the long deprivation, which disrupted the company’s business. He said this did not duplicate the value of the missing goods.
The company had asked for interest at 25% a year from 18 January 2012. The judge found no agreement or other evidence to justify such a commercial rate, and set 7% from the date of judgment.
What It Means for US Readers
For foreign companies in Tanzania, the Tanzania court decision shows that state bodies can be held liable for property they seize. It also shows how slowly that can happen, with two decades between the raid and the award.
Paperwork decided the outcome. Seizure certificates from 2006 and a handover report from 2012 outweighed the state’s case that everything had come back.
The interest ruling matters for anyone weighing a legal claim. Without a contract setting a rate, the court allowed 7% only from the date of judgment, not the 25% sought from 2012.
Tanesco matters to many investors as Tanzania’s state power utility. In early October it launched a scheme with CRDB Bank to ease electricity connection costs.
A guide to Tanzania’s politics and economy gives more background on the country.
What Is Not Known
It is not known whether the police, the government or Tanesco will appeal the Tanzania court ruling. The Tanzanian press reports of 4 and 5 October carried no comment from the police or Tanesco.
The order does not split the bill between the police and Tanesco, and no payment date has been made public.
No one from the company was charged over the 2006 suspicion, according to the company’s account in court. The judgment is a civil ruling that decides who must pay for the goods, not whether a crime took place.
What Comes Next
Any appeal would go to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania, which hears appeals from the High Court. A party that wants to appeal must first file a notice of appeal.
Until the money is paid, interest of 7% a year keeps running on the award. The case is Future Century Limited v Inspector General of Police and Others, [2026] TZHC 5705.
More: Tanzania news in English, every day from The Rio Times.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the court order?
The Tanzania court ordered the Inspector General of Police and Tanesco to pay Future Century Limited 646 million shillings (US$244,562). That covers missing goods and general damages, plus interest and legal costs.
Why did police seize the equipment?
In July 2006, police acted on information that the company held electrical materials and tools believed stolen from Tanesco. The company says police later found too little evidence to charge it or its director.
Who has to pay?
The head of the police and Tanesco are liable jointly and severally. That means the company can recover the whole award from either of them.
Can the ruling be appealed?
Yes. Either side can take the Tanzania court ruling to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania. It is not yet known whether the police or Tanesco will do so.
Why did the company not get 25% interest?
It asked for 25% a year from January 2012, but the judge found no agreement or evidence to justify that rate. He set 7% a year from the date of judgment instead.
Sources: High Court of Tanzania, Future Century Limited vs Inspector General of Police and Others (Civil Case No. 5 of 2018) [2026] TZHC 5705, via TanzLII, 24 September 2026; Mwananchi, 4 October 2026; The Citizen (Tanzania), 5 October 2026; Ministry of Energy, Tanzania (institutions and subsidiary), accessed 6 October 2026.
This article was produced by The Rio Times’ automated newsroom system. How we use AI · Report an error · Editorial responsibility: Matthias Camenzind, Editor-in-Chief