TASK, The cause of new Chriphopher Mtikila v Attoryney General 1995 .case number 31 Tanzania Law Report


The case was held in THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA-DODOMA.
The parties of the case was sided by Rev Christopher Mtikila  v. Attorney General case of 1995 TLR case number  31. Due to those parties of that case was including the parties of petitioner as Christopher Mtikila respondent to Attorney General about the human right campaigner and the political activist
The material fact of the case was about litigation of public affairs, This was among of the litigation due to the public affairs as a person to participate in different public issues in the societies and due to the high court they specified this by justified in article 26(2) which states tat “Every person has the right in accordance with the procedure provided by law to take legal action to ensure protection of this constitution and the law of the land “So due to those expression ensure that in public affairs every person has the right to practice this either in protection or to take legal action for the problem.
The issue of the case is whether  the power of Parliament to amend constitution limitless, whether the petitioner has locus stand under article 30(3) of constitution, whether parliament can amend constitution safeguard the fundamental rights, whether sufficient interest is necessary in public litigation under article 20(2) of the constitution , whether  suit in same material fact pending by another court subsequent suit can be institute, whether appointment of the person from Zanzibar to hold non union office in main land is constitution
In this petition the dispute is over the validity of various laws and that a suffices to constitute a cause of action it is not always necessary for powers under those laws to be exercised first so as to give rise to a cause of action, Parliament is given very wide powers to amend constitutional provisions, including those providing for basic human rights but those powers of parliament can only be exercised subject to the limits imposed by articles 30(2) and (3) of the constitution what is powers of parliament c to amend is only the ethic of human right but not the letter by which those right are expressed.
The statement of the law in this case is the constitutional law. The Civil Procedure Code, 1966, Political Parties Act 1992, Police Force Ordinance,  News Paper Act 1976.
These provisions are alleged to inhibit the formation of political party and there for infringe the freedom of association. I am called upon to declare them unconstitutional and void. The fifth issue arises from the amendment to acts 39, 67 and 77 as well as s 39 of the local authorities (Elections) Act 1979. This amendment renders it impossible for independent candidate to contest presidential, parliamentary or local council elections. I am again called upon to remedy the situation B in the third issue the petition take on s 5(2), 13, 25, and 37-47 of the News papers Act, 1976 [NO 3] section 5{2) empowers the minister responsible for matters relating to newspaper from the operation of C any of the provisions relating to the registration of news papers to execute and register a bond in the office of the registrar of newspapers. The fourth issue turns on the freedom of peaceful assembly and public expression and questions the constitutionally of section 40, 41, 42, 43 of the police Force Ordinance cap 322 as well as a 11{1) and (2} of the Political Parties Act.
In such a grave and serious affair that it cannot be arrived at by mere inferences however attractive and apprehend that this would require proof beyond reasonable doubt. I have there for not found I in a position to make the declaration sought and I desist from doing so. Finally each prayed for costs. I cannot find my way to award any. In the first place the record suggests that this was a legal aid case and I don’t quite see how the question of costs arises. Additionally, I think this was balanced case where both sides won and lost. The parties will therefore bear their respective costs.








REFERENCES
The Constitution of United Republic of Tanzania 1977
Case of Christopher Mtikila v. Attorney General TLR 31[HC]   

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

International Law

KATIBA YA KIKUNDI