DAR ES SALAAM: IN many Tanzanian neighbourhoods, danger rarely announces itself loudly. It hides in the small things like a loose balcony rail, a wet supermarket floor, an uncovered pit in a rental compound even exposed wiring in a bar then an accident happens, someone is injured and immediately the question rises quietly at first, then urgently: Who is responsible?
That question is not emotional. It is legal. And Tanzanian law answers it through The Occupiers’ Liability Act, 1968 (Act No 64 of 1968).
This Act is not concerned with dramatic wrongdoing. It is concerned with everyday spaces, the places we enter with permission, expecting reasonable safety. To understand how the law works, we must begin with the space itself. What Counts as “Premises”?
The Act does not limit itself to houses alone. Under section 1(3)(a) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act, 1968, “premises” include: “any fixed or movable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft.”
That definition is intentionally wide. It captures shops, apartment buildings, scaffolding, construction sites, staircases, ships in dry dock, even vehicles.
The law is saying something important here: if the danger arises from the condition of a place, the Act may apply but identifying the place is only the first step.
The real question is who stands legally behind that place? Who Is an Occupier? The Act focuses not on ownership, but on control.
Although the statute does not provide a rigid definition, courts interpret an occupier as a person with a sufficient degree of control over the premises.
Liability attaches to the person who has the power to manage the condition of the property and regulate entry. A landlord may be an occupier, a tenant operating a business may be an occupier, a restaurant manager may be an occupier.
Ownership alone is not decisive. Control is. This shift from ownership to control is deliberate. The law is practical, it places responsibility on the person who is in the best position to prevent arm. Now that we know who may be re
sponsible, we turn to the people the law seeks to protect. Who Is Protected Under the Act? Under section 2 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act, 1968, the Act applies to “visitors.”
Visitors include persons who enter premises as invitees or licensees, in simple terms, people who have express or implied permission to be there.
Example customers in a shop ,tenants’ guests , repair technicians, delivery personnel among others. These are not strangers forcing entry, they are people lawfully present. The protection of visitors brings us to the central principle of the Act.
The Common Duty of Care At the heart of the statute is section 3(1), which establishes what is known as the “common duty of care.” It provides that an occupier must: “take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted to be there.”
Two words carry the weight of this provision: reasonable and reasonably . The law does not require perfection, it requires foresight. It asks whether, in the circumstances, the occupier took reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm. What is reasonable depends on context.
A busy construction site will not be judged by the same standard as a residential apartment, a hardware store is not expected to eliminate every tool, but it is expected to manage risk appropriately.
This flexibility allows the law to respond to society as it actually functions and society includes children. Children and Heightened Responsibility Under section 3(3)(a), an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults. This is a recognition of human reality.
Children explore, they misjudge risks and they are curious. If an occupier leaves an unfenced pit near a residential compound, the defence that “the child should have known better” is unlikely to succeed.
The law expects adults to anticipate youthful behaviour. This reinforces a broader message that safety standards adjust according to vulnerability. But what if an occupier claims that a warning was given?
Are Warnings Enough? Under section 3(4)(a), a warning will only discharge the occupier’s duty if it is sufficient to make the visitor reasonably safe .
A warning is not decorative, it must function. A small, unreadable sign placed in a dark corner will not protect an occupier from liability. The warning must be clear, visible and effective in reducing the danger.
The law looks beyond the presence of a sign, it examines whether the risk was truly managed. Even where work is delegated, responsibility does not disappear.
ALSO READ: Traders urged to take responsibility for waste management
Independent Contractors and Reasonableness Under section 4(1), where damage is caused by faulty work of an independent contractor, the occupier may avoid liability if he acted reasonably in entrusting the work and took reasonable steps to ensure the contractor’s competence.
This provision reflects modern reality, much work is outsourced, construction is subcontracted and maintenance is delegated. But delegation is not abandonment. The occupier must still show that reasonable care was exercised in selecting and supervising the contractor.
The law remains anchored in reasonableness. When Neglect Becomes Liability The practical importance of this duty is illustrated in Michael Mwamiko v. Angelite Mwanjela (HC, Civil Case No. 7 of 1991, Dar es Salaam).
Michael Mwamiko was a tenant in a rental compound in Kiwalani. For several months, he repeatedly informed his landlord that the cement floor of the pit latrine had developed a visible crack.
The crack widened gradually, water seeped underneath. The structure became unstable. Mwamiko made oral complaints and formally requested that repairs be undertaken but no inspection was carried out, no temporary reinforcement was installed and no repair was done.
On 17 June 1988, while Mwamiko’s wife was bathing in the latrine with her elderly mother-in-law, the weakened floor suddenly gave way.
Both women fell into the pit and drowned. In court, evidence showed that the landlord had been aware of the deteriorating condition and had taken no steps to repair it.
The High Court held that the landlord, as the person in control of the premises, owed a duty to maintain the latrine in a reasonably safe condition.
The risk was foreseeable, the danger was visible and the failure to act amounted to a breach of duty. The landlord’s absence from the property did not remove responsibility, control brought liability.
This case reflects that tenants often endure unsafe conditions, believing repair is a favour. The law makes it clear that safety is not a favour, it is a legal obligation.
The Limits: Trespassers and Protection While the Act primarily protects visitors, the law does not allow occupiers to create hidden traps for trespassers.
Visible protective measures may be lawful but concealed dangers designed to injure are not. Protection of property is allowed but retaliation is not. At this point, the structure of the Act becomes clear.
The law identifies a place. It identifies control over that place. It defines who is lawfully present. It imposes a standard of reasonable care. It adjusts that standard based on vulnerability and context.
And finally, it asks whether harm was foreseeable and preventable. This is not merely about compensation after injury, it is about preventing injury in the first place.
Landlords must inspect property, business owners must repair hazards, construction managers must secure sites, tenants must understand their rights. Legal literacy is preventive justice.
That is where Jua leo, jilinde kesho finds its legal meaning. Know the duty today. Reduce the risk tomorrow. Protect life before liability arises.
The Occupiers’ Liability Act, 1968 does not impose unrealistic burdens. It imposes proportionate responsibility based on control and foreseeability.
Where there is control, there is duty. Where there is foreseeability, there is accountability. In a rapidly urbanising society, safety is not a favour extended by occupiers, it is a legal obligation. Understanding that today is how we protect tomorrow.
This article is provided for general legal awareness and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice.
Legal outcomes depend on the specific facts of each case. For professional guidance, consult a qualified legal practitioner.