INTRODUCTION

This is individual assignment which required me to study different books and what we learn in
class then to summarize the given cases to connect with what we learnt in class.

MAIN BODY

In this part am going to explain the given cases with relation to what we learnt in class.

1. Re an Application by Bukoba Gymkhana Club1

Material fact: Applicatnt applied to the court for the order of certiorari to be awarded against
the decision of Lincencing board Authority refusing the the renewal of Club licence which they
held it for thirty four years, The president and trustees of the club thereupon applied to the
High Court for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the board rejecting the
club’s application for the grant of a club licence and also for a writ of mandamus that the board
hear and determine the application according to law. The grounds on which the applicants
relied were, inter alia, that the board (a) had failed to hear and determine the application
according to law and had failed to act judicially, (b) in purporting to determine the application
had failed properly to exercise the discretion vested in them by the Ordinance and (c) in
purporting to determine the application were actuated by or purported to be actuated by
extraneous circumstances, namely, the rules providing for election of members to the club.

Held: The court ruled that the refusal for the renewal of the licence by the Licencing Authority
on the ground of that club was discriminatory by looking its composition is utra vires due to the
irelevant consideration in addition to that the decision made was unreasonable and no
reasonable authorty would make such decision of refusing the applicant's renewal of business
licence of the ground of irresponsible behaviour and that he did not respect his elder. Also the
order of Certiorari was awarded on the reason that the board has excess their power because
grant or refusal of a licence by the board was a judicial act and the act judicially.

1
[1963] 1 EA 478 (HCT)
This case relate to what we learnt in administrative law speciffically on the ground of certiorari
as remedy of judicial review.

Certiorari, Is an order of the High Court to call up and examine the decision of the inferior
tribunal or other agency as to its legality. If it fails to pass the test of legality, it will be quashed
or nullified2.

The following are the ground to be proved in order for the writ of certiorari to be ordered

i. Lack or excess of power or jurisdiction by the lower court or tribunal .

This means that a person can apply for the order of certiorari to be awarded on the ground
that the respondend has acted utra vires, as occure on the Re an Application by Bukoba
Gymkhana Club, where the court grant the certiorarj by consider grounds that the respondent
acted judicially where they should not suppose to do so. The case of O’Reilly v Mackman3. Lord
Atkin: ... whenever any body of persons having legal authority to determine questions affecting
the rights of subjects, and having the duty to act judicially, act in excess of their legal authority,
they are subject to the controlling jurisdiction of the King’s Bench Division exercised in these
writs.

ii. That the conclusion arrived at is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever
come to it4.

As we refer in the given case the court stated that decision made was unreasonable and
no reasonable authorty would make such decision, this is one among the ground which used to
order the remedy of certiorari by the reason unreasonableness of the decision made by the
board of Lincence Authority as also shown on the case of Kruse v Johnson5 the the local
authority passed by law prohibiting any person to play or sing music in any dwelling house in
2
B. D. Chipeta, Administrative Law in Tanzania (A digest of case), (Dar es Salaam: Mkuki na Nyota Publisher,2009). Pg No. 121

Idd R. Mandi, LECTURE NOTES IN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

3
(1983)
4
B. D. Chipeta, Administrative Law in Tanzania (A digest of case), (Dar es Salaam: Mkuki na Nyota Publisher,2009). Pg No. 183

5
[1898] 2 Q.B 127
highway within 50 yard, the court nullfied that by law with the reason that was unreasonable
and no reasonable authority could make such decision. Also the decision was unreasonable on
the fact the applicant did not given a chance to present their argument before the board in
order to see if they can meet the requirement6.

2. John Mwombeki Byombaliwa v The Regional Commisioner and Regional Police

Material fact: The applicant was suspected of economic saboteurs. He was arrested in March
1983 and a substantial part of his property valued at Shs.11,675,680/= was seized (excluding
beer and Konyagi). He was charged with hoarding property but the special tribunal acquitted
him and ordered that the seized property be restored to the applicant. The government
officials involved did not comply with the order and continue to hold that seized property
where by the applicant decide go to the court so that the order of mandamous to issued in
order that government official to comply the decision of special tribunal.

Held: Mwalusanya, J "I would order that the respondents should immediately hand over to the
applicant his goods that were seized as listed on annexure A to the summons of Chamber
application or if they don't have the goods they should pay him the value of the same which is
Shs.11,675,680/=; they should pay him his beer and kerosine or their value Shs.1,435,112/00
which is allegedly lying in the suspense account of N.B.C. Kagera; and they should also give him
his 79 cartons of Konyagi or pay him Shs. 568,800/= the value of the seized Konyagi.
Consequently the applicant is to be given by the two respondents all the mentioned goods and
if they are not there, they should pay him the total value of Shs. 13,679,592/70. An order of
mandamus to issue accordingly".

According to what we learnt in administrative law this case elaborate the meaning of
mandamous as one among the remedy of judicial review as well as five conditions which must
be proved so that the mandamous order to be issued.

6
B. D. Chipeta, Administrative Law in Tanzania (A digest of case), (Dar es Salaam: Mkuki na Nyota Publisher,2009). Pg No. 184

7
[1986] TLR 73 (HC)
Mandamous, Is the procedure whereby a citizen with sufficient legal interest may apply to the
High Court to compel a public officer to perform a public duty entrusted to him. It is said it will
be granted if the duty is in the nature of a public duty and especially affects the rights of an
individual, provided there is no more appropriate remedy 8. The person or authority to whom it
is issued must be either under a statutory or legal duty to do something or not to do something;
the duty itself being of an imperative nature. Also the given case provide the following
conditions:-

I. The applicant must have demanded performance and the respondents must have
refused to perform. This means in order for someone approach the court for the order of
mandamous to be issue he must be sure that he was demand a perfomance and respondent fail
to do so.

II. The respondents as public officers must have a public duty to perform imposed on
them by statute or any other law but it should not be a duty owed solely to the state but should
be a duty owed as well to the individual citizen. This is another condition to be taken into
consideration by the applicant where by he must make sure that is the public officer who fail to
perform such duty he demanded.
III. The public duty imposed should be of an imperative nature and not a
discretionary one. This means that applicant could apply for the order of mandamous so that to
compell public official to perform duty which is discretionary to him as decided on the case of
Re Fletcher’s Application9, the applicant asked the Parliamentary Commissioner (an
Ombudsman in England) to investigate his claim and the Commissioner refused. He filed an
application in court asking it to issue the mandamus to compel the Commissioner to
investigate. It was held that the relevant law partly provided that "The Commissioner may
investigate” and hence such duty was discretionary and mandamus would not issue.
IV. The applicant must have a locus standi: that is, he must have sufficient interest in
the matter he is applying for. This means who supposed to apply or to seek for this remedy he
must have iterest on such matter, so this is another condition which the applicant must comply
8
B. D. Chipeta, Administrative Law in Tanzania (A digest of case), (Dar es Salaam: Mkuki na Nyota Publisher,2009). Pg No. 129

9
[1970]2 All ER 527
with, where by before seeking for the order of mandamous he must make sure that he has
locus stand on that matter. As occured on the case of Lujuna Shubi Ballonzi, Senior v
Registered trustees of Chama Cha Mapinduzi 10 Where by the case provide that in order for
someone to bring the mattar before the court of law he must make sure that his right has been
breached. So in order for someone to make application for the order of mandamous he must
make sure that he is the one who duty denied to be perfomed on his favour.
V. There should be no other appropriate remedy available to the applicant.” This is
last condition where by the applicant must comply with that in order for him to apply for the
order of mandamous he must make sure that there is no other appropriate remedy available to
him. In the case of Abadiah Selehe v Dodoma wine company limited 11 "It was stated that, an
order of mandamus is a discretionary remedy, As a general rule the court will refuse to issue the
order if there is another convenient and feasible remedy within the reach of the applicant".

3. Robert Mhando and another Vs. Registered Trustees of St.

Material fact: The appellants appeal against the decision delivered by the High of Tanzania
Mwanza registry which was also an appeal decision where they ruled out the decision by
District court of Mwanza at Nyamagana. The appelants file civil case at district court of
Nyamagan against the decision of refusing then to sit fo final examination by St. Augustine
University of Tanzania by the reason that they did not pay tuition fee which is not true because
the pay it to accountant and they have payslip of that payment. The district court award the
50,000,000/=tsh as the general witness but SAUT appeal against that decision in High court,
were by high court decides that appeal on the favor of SAUT. Then appelants agrieved with that
decision and decide to appeal in the court of appeal.

Held: The Court of Appeal rules iut the decision of High court and stand with the decision of
District court which award them Tsh 50,000,000/= but the court of appeal reduce that award to

10
[1996 ]TLR 203 (HC)

11
[1990] TLR 113 (HC)

12
Civ. Appeal No. 80 of 2019
Tsh 30,000,000/= as the general damages and stated that court suppose to award which some
one prayed and not otherwise and they refer the case of Cooper Motors Corporation (T)
Limited Vs. Arusha International Conference Centre 13 "where we held that, it was wrong for
the trial Judge to award special damages which were more than what the respondent had
claimed and that, a party is only awarded damages which he pleaded provided that damage or
injury is proved by way of evidence".

According to what we learn in administrative law, this case answer the question of
contradiction of many Scholars on the issue of when University deny to grant degree which
relief agrieved party have, either to institute normal civil case or seek for judicial review. As we
saw in this case tha appelant file normal civil case and got the remedy of getting their degree as
well as general damages.

As to my opinion judicial review is filled agaisnt the decision of public bodies entertain the three
administrative actions such as Qusi-judicial, Quasi-legislationand purely administrative law.
Also when private perfoming public function also person can seek for judicial review as occured
on the case of Halima Mdee and 18others v The body of trustee of Chadema, "the court held
that although Chadema is private body but they perform public function so seeking for judicial
review is proper" According to the given case refusing granting degree to those student done
by private body and they did not perfom public function, so it was proper for filling normal civil
case than judicial review.

4. Kukutia Ole Pumbun and Another V. AG and Another14

Material fact: The appelants sued the respondent so that to recover damages for tresspas,
assault and conversion in The high court, but they did not seek the consent of Attorney general
as the first procedure of suing the government, so the respondent raise an objection that the
case was incompetent before the high court since the consent of attorney general did not
complied. Respondent goes further and said in order someone to sue the government Section

13
[1991] T.L.R 165
14
(1993) TLR 159
6(2) of The government proceedings Act15 must be complied. So he pray that the court to struck
out the case since is incompetent. The plaintiff argue that that Section is unconstitutional and
shall be nullfied. The high court Decide the case on the merit of deffendant and state that
Section 6 of The government proceesing Act16 was not unconstitutional. The appelant appeal
against that decision to the court of appeal.

The appelant submitted that Section 6 of the Government Proceedings Act 17 was
null and void and should be struck down as it violated the guaranteed right
of unimpeded access to Courts contrary to Articles 13(3), and (6), and 30(3)
of the Constitution18. He further submitted that the combined effect of that
was that the section offended against the separation of powers by enabling
the Government to exercise a judicial function of deciding upon its civil
liability or the extent of that liability and hence decide whether it should be
sued or not. This enabled the Government to be a judge in its own cause. It
also offended against the principle that requires the Government to be
responsible and accountable to its people.

Held: Section 6 violated articles 13(1) and (2) of the Constitution 19, which
guaranteed equality before the law, as the remedy depended on which court
one went to in the same Republic.

The requirement of consent to sue was not really necessary for the purpose
of affording the Government time to assess the claim and consider
settlement out of Court. The restriction militated against the principles of
good governance, which called for accountability and openness or
transparency on the part of Governments.

15
[Cap 5 RE 2019]

16
1967

17
1967

18
Of 1977 as amended from time to time

19
Of 1977 as amended from time to time
Section 6 of the Government proceedings Act20 as amended by Act 40 of
1974 unconstitutional and void and struck down.

According to what we learnt in administrative law class this case explain one among the
procedure which available when one want to sue the government which is the consent of
Attorney General. As stipulated under Section 6(2) of The government proceedings Act21, before
filling the civil litigation against the government a person must seek the consent of attorney
general within ninety days explaining his intention to sue the Government, specifying the basis
of his claim against the Government22.

5. Peter Ng’omango v. Gerson Mwangwa and AG23

Material fact: The plaintiff was the employee of Mpwapwa College, he sued Principal of
Mpwapwa College for defamataion. But according to the Government Proceeding Act 24 require
the ministerial consent to sue the Government. But The plaintiff applied to join Attorney
general as co-deffendant because he was Public servant but court rejected that application and
he decides to apply third party proceeeding and finally joined as second deffendant. The
plaintiff raised an objection and stated that by waiting the ministerial consent ammount to
unreasonableness as well as unconstitutionality.

Held: The court held that, Section 6 of Government Proceeding Act 25 is unconstitutional,
because it violate the peovision of Article 13(3), 13(6)(a) and 30(3) of The Constitution of the
United Republic of Tanzania26

20
1967

21
[Cap 5 RE 2019]

22
B. D. Chipeta, Administrative Law in Tanzania (A digest of case), (Dar es Salaam: Mkuki na Nyota Publisher,2009). Pg No. 76-
79

23
(1993) TLR 77
24
1967 RE 1974

25
1967

26
1977 as amended from time to time
In relation to what we learned in Administrative law this case relate to the principle of
Constitution and specifically Constitutional Supremacy.

Constitution Supremacy, This principle require Constitution must the fundamental over the all
law in land, as provided under Article 64(5) of The Constituon of United Republic of Tanzania 27
provides that any law which is inconsistence with the Constitution shall be null and void. So the
given case help to show the Supremacy of Constitution and Government proceeding Act of
1967 was declared to be null amd Void.

Also according to Tanzania Court of Appeal guideline provides that the law should not offend
the doctrino of proportionlity of reasonableness that the law should not be too bloadly drafted
as to clear the innocent and offenders, so according to the given case we see that the Section 6
of Government proceedings Act was unreasonable since it was drafted to clear the defendant
who is the government, where when person agrieved by action the consent of minister was
needed to sue the government. Also as per the case of Christopher Mtikila v The Editer,
Business Times and Mr. Augustine Lyantonga Mrema 28 The court held that the provision of
Section 6 of Government Proceedings Act used as the sword to the plaintiffs29.

Also this case relate to the violation of principle of natural Justice specifically Rule against bias
which means a person should no be judge of his own case, since when someone want to sue
the government must seek the consent of the government it entails the bias because the
government have the power to decides to seu not being sued 30. The case of Dr. Bonham’s
Case31 "In this case the College of Physicians wanted to fine and imprison Dr. Bonham of
Cambridge University for practicing in the city of London without License from the College of
Physicians. The law under which the college based its authority provided interalia that proceeds
from the fine should be divided with of half going to the King and the other half to the College.

27
1977 as amended from time to time

28
(1993) TLR 60 (HC)

29
B. D. Chipeta, Administrative Law in Tanzania (A digest of case), (Dar es Salaam: Mkuki na Nyota Publisher,2009). Pg No. 80

30
B. D. Chipeta, Administrative Law in Tanzania (A digest of case), (Dar es Salaam: Mkuki na Nyota Publisher,2009). Pg No. 184

31
1610 Co.Rep.113b
Attacking this statute as being against common right and reason, the court ruled that the
College had financial interest in its own judgement and therefore it was a judge in its own
cause".

6. Onesmo Olengurumwa vs. AG32

Material fact: The petitioner lounge the complaint to question the Constituonality of Sections 4
(2); 4 (3); 4 (4), and 4 (5) o f the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act 33, wher by he stated
that those Sections are contrary to Article 26(2) of Constitution of the United Republic of
Tanzania34, Sections 4(2), (3), (4); (5)35 are inconsistent with Article 13(2) and 13(4), 13(6)(a),
26(1) and 26(2) o f the Constitution36 Also Section 4(4) violate Article 26(1), 13 (2), and 13 (6) (a)
o f the Constitution37 and Section 4(5) violate Article 13(6)(a) and 26(1) o f the Constitution38.

Those Sections which the applicant challenge it concerned with the issues of public litigation
where by Section 4(2) restrict the High Court of Tanzania to admit a constitutional case unless
the Petitioner proves (at the stage of admission) the extent to which the contravention of the
provisions of Articles 12 to 29 of theconstitution39 has affected him/her personally, Section 4(3)
introduced to require a person exercising the right provided for under Article 26 (2) o f the
Constitution (supra) to comply and abide by the provisions or Article 30 (3) of the Constitution,
Section 4(4)40 introduced with the effect of restricting the filing of constitutional cases against
the President, Vice-President, Prime Minister, the Speaker, Deputy Speaker, or Chief Justice for
any act or omission done in the performance of their duties by designating the Attorney

32
(Misc Civil Cause No. 9 of 2021)

33
[CAP 3 RE 2020]
34
1977 as amended from time to time

35
[Cap 3 RE 2020]

36
1977 as amended from time to time

37
1977 as amended from time to time

38
1977 as amended from time to time

39
1977 as amended from time to time

40
1977 as amended from time to time
General as the Respondent. And also Section 4(5) introduced to provide for a mandatory
requirement of exhaustion of all available remedies under any other written laws before filing a
constitutional petition.

Repspondent while replying on the allegation he stipulated that those mentioned Sections
didnt violate any provision of the constitution and he prayed to the court that the suit should
be dismissed on his favor.

Basing on what we learnt in class this case relate to Public litigation, also list the requirement in
order a person to lounge public litigation.

Public Interest litigation, The meaning of public litigation according to the given case refer tha
case of S.P Gupta v.Union of India41 state that "whenever there is a public wrong or public
injury caused by an act or omission of the State or a public authority which is contrary to the
Constitution or the law, any member o f the public acting bona fide and having sufficient
interest, can maintain an action for redressai o f such public wrong or public injury".

In the case of Zitto Zuberi Kabwe vs. The President of United Republic of Tanzania and
others42 which it provides for locus standi to ask for redress in the High Court by filling petition
when constitutional basic rights and duties have been infringed. So it established that if ones
think that the Article 20-29 of The Constitution43 has been infringed he support to file the petition
before the high court.

CONCLUSION

Those cases i explained above are very important to the law student specifically on
administrative law because it explains and estabished different important things concerning
administrative matters. Every student who study administrative can not depart with those
cases. Lastly according to what we learnt in class those above are the relations to what i study
in administratuve law class.
41
AIR 1982 SC 149

42
(Mis. Civil Cause No. 1 of 2020)
43
1977 as amended from time to time
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

CONSTITUTION

The Constitution of 1977 as amended from time to time

STATUTES

The Basic Right and Duties Enforcement Act [Cap 3 RE 2020]

The Government Proceedings Act 1967

CASES

Re: Bukoba Gymkana club (1963) EA 478

John Byombalirwa v. Regional Commissioner and Regional Police

Robert Mhando and another Vs. Registered Trustees of St. Augustine

Kukutia Ole Pumbun and Another V. AG and Another (1993) TLR 159

Peter Ng’omango v. Gerson Mwangwa and AG (1993) TLR 77

Onesmo Olengurumwa vs. AG (Misc Civil Cause No. 9 of 2021)

Zitto Zuberi Kabwe vs. The President of United Republic of Tanzania and others (Mis. Civil
Cause No. 1 of 2020)

S.P Gupta v.Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149

hristopher Mtikila v The Editer, Business Times and Mr. Augustine Lyantonga Mrema (1993) TLR
60 (HC)

Halima Mdee and 18others v The body of trustee of Chadema

Cooper Motors Corporation (T) Limited Vs. Arusha International Conference Centre [1991] T.L.R
165

Abadiah Selehe v Dodoma wine company limited [1990] TLR 113 (HC)

Lujuna Shubi Ballonzi, Senior v Registered trustees of Chama Cha Mapinduzi [1996 ]TLR 203
(HC)

Re Fletcher’s Application [1970]2 All ER 527

O’Reilly v Mackman (1983)

BOOKS

D. Chipeta, Administrative Law in Tanzania (A digest of case), (Dar es Salaam: Mkuki na Nyota
Publisher,2009).

Idd R. Mandi, LECTURE NOTES IN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW