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 name of the parties to the case is Rev Christopher Mtikila v. Attorney General
There was a litigation of public affairs, this was among of litigation due to public affairs as a person to participate in different public issue in the society and due to the high court they specified this by justified in Article 26(2) which gives that “Every person has the right in accordance with the procedure provided by law to take legal action to ensure the protection of this constitution and the law of the land. So due to that 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 or criminal and other issues.
Whether petitioner has locus stand article 30(3) of the constitution which gives that “Any person claiming that any provision in this part of this chapter or in any law concerning his right or duty owed to him has been, is being or is likely to be violated by any person anywhere in the United Republic, may institute proceedings for redress in the High Court. Whether sufficient interest is necessary in public interest litigation article 26(2) which states that “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 laws of the land.
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 course of action. As the issue of constitutionality of certain provision of the Political Parties Act 1992 is also substantially an issue in an appeal already pending before the court of appeal, interims s 8 of the Civil Procedure Code 1996, decision on that issue is stayed until the outcome of the said appeal. Fundamental rights are not gifts from the state but they inhere in a person by virtue of birth, and they are prior to the state and the law, the enactment of those right in the constitution is mere evidence of their B recognition and the intention that they should be enforceable in the court of law, and an intention that those right should not be arbitrarily restricted by the state.
The law which is applicable is a constitutional law of the United Republic of Tanzania under part III of the constitution. Article 20(9) state that “Every person has a freedom, to freely and peaceably assemble, associate and cooperate with other person, and for the purpose, express views Publicly and to form and join with associations or organizations formed for purposes of preserving his believes or interests or any other interests
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, 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 election. 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 newspapers act 1976[NO 3] section 5{2) empowers the minister responsible for matters relating to news paper from the operation of C any of the provision related to newspaper execute and register a bond in the office of registrar of newspaper.
In such a grave and serious affair that it cannot be arrived at by mere inferences however attractive and apprehend this would require proof beyond reasonable doubt. I have there for not found I in the positio0n to make 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 The United Republic f Tanzania 1977
Christopher Mtikila v Attorney General 1995 TLR 31 [HC

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

International Law

KATIBA YA KIKUNDI