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
Post a Comment