Hukumu ya kesi ya Kikatiba kuhusu IGA: Ni upotoshaji kuaminisha kuwa IGA inaathari kwenye Sovereignty na miliki ya rasilimali

[comte]

Regarding the contention that Article 4 (2) of the IGA is violative of theAct No. 5 of 2017 and the constitutional provisions on sovereignty, our unflustered view is that the petitioners' construction of the said provision is ill-thought-out, if not misleading.

Our unfleeting reading of Article 4 (2)brings out the fact that, whereas the URT will have the obligation of relayinginformation on investment opportunities that may be available, such information does not convey any automatic or outright privilege or right by DPW or the Emirate of Dubai to invest in the opportunity in respect of which information has been relayed. Any subsequent engagement is subject to submission of proposal and evaluation of its viability, singly, or alongside other proposals.

We do not find anything that obligates the URT to grant or award anything subsequent to the passage of information on the investmentopportunities. It is our construction that "to inform" conveys no othermeaning than "to make one aware of something". It is merely an act ofimparting knowledge especially of facts or occurrences {See:httpsj//www.merriarrhwebster.com)■ By conveying information, nothingtakes away the URT's ability and right to weigh the feasibility of any offersand proposals submitted, either by Dubai or by any prospective investor onthe area of investment in respect of which information under Article 4 (2)has been passed. As we consider this petitioners' contention drifting from the actualconstruction and intent, we also find the argument that this provision grantsexclusivity to Dubai off the mark.

Information to Dubai does not curtail orprevent the URT from passing the same information to other strategic andwilling investors.

It is merely an alert in order to get to know what is onoffer. We reckon that passage or dissemination of information on trade andinvestment opportunities is daily done by embassies across the globe andthat cannot be said to be violative of any country's law.

It is in view thereof,that we consider the submission by the petitioners lacking the necessarycutting edge which would convince us to hold otherwise.

 

[Zawadini]

Regarding the contention that Article 4 (2) of the IGA is violative of theAct No. 5 of 2017 and the constitutional provisions on sovereignty, our unflustered view is that the petitioners' construction of the said provision is ill-thought-out, if not misleading.

Our unfleeting reading of Article 4 (2)brings out the fact that, whereas the URT will have the obligation of relayinginformation on investment opportunities that may be available, such information does not convey any automatic or outright privilege or right by DPW or the Emirate of Dubai to invest in the opportunity in respect of which information has been relayed. Any subsequent engagement is subject to submission of proposal and evaluation of its viability, singly, or alongside other proposals.

We do not find anything that obligates the URT to grant or award anything subsequent to the passage of information on the investmentopportunities. It is our construction that "to inform" conveys no othermeaning than "to make one aware of something". It is merely an act ofimparting knowledge especially of facts or occurrences {See:httpsj//www.merriarrhwebster.com)■ By conveying information, nothingtakes away the URT's ability and right to weigh the feasibility of any offersand proposals submitted, either by Dubai or by any prospective investor onthe area of investment in respect of which information under Article 4 (2)has been passed. As we consider this petitioners' contention drifting from the actualconstruction and intent, we also find the argument that this provision grantsexclusivity to Dubai off the mark.

Information to Dubai does not curtail orprevent the URT from passing the same information to other strategic andwilling investors.

It is merely an alert in order to get to know what is onoffer. We reckon that passage or dissemination of information on trade andinvestment opportunities is daily done by embassies across the globe andthat cannot be said to be violative of any country's law.

It is in view thereof,that we consider the submission by the petitioners lacking the necessarycutting edge which would convince us to hold otherwise.

Madini yote haya wanatokea watu wanadai, bila ushahidi, eti majaji wamepigiwa simu kwasababu tu mahakama imeamua kinyume na matakwa yao!!

 

[Michael Uledi]

Regarding the contention that Article 4 (2) of the IGA is violative of theAct No. 5 of 2017 and the constitutional provisions on sovereignty, our unflustered view is that the petitioners' construction of the said provision is ill-thought-out, if not misleading.

Our unfleeting reading of Article 4 (2)brings out the fact that, whereas the URT will have the obligation of relayinginformation on investment opportunities that may be available, such information does not convey any automatic or outright privilege or right by DPW or the Emirate of Dubai to invest in the opportunity in respect of which information has been relayed. Any subsequent engagement is subject to submission of proposal and evaluation of its viability, singly, or alongside other proposals.

We do not find anything that obligates the URT to grant or award anything subsequent to the passage of information on the investmentopportunities. It is our construction that "to inform" conveys no othermeaning than "to make one aware of something". It is merely an act ofimparting knowledge especially of facts or occurrences {See:httpsj//www.merriarrhwebster.com)■ By conveying information, nothingtakes away the URT's ability and right to weigh the feasibility of any offersand proposals submitted, either by Dubai or by any prospective investor onthe area of investment in respect of which information under Article 4 (2)has been passed. As we consider this petitioners' contention drifting from the actualconstruction and intent, we also find the argument that this provision grantsexclusivity to Dubai off the mark.

Information to Dubai does not curtail orprevent the URT from passing the same information to other strategic andwilling investors.

It is merely an alert in order to get to know what is onoffer. We reckon that passage or dissemination of information on trade andinvestment opportunities is daily done by embassies across the globe andthat cannot be said to be violative of any country's law.

It is in view thereof,that we consider the submission by the petitioners lacking the necessarycutting edge which would convince us to hold otherwise.

Niliandika leo andiko kabla ya hukumu ya mahakama kutoka.

Nimeandika andiko hilo saa moja na madakika asubuhi,one of my argent ilikuwa ni hii hii kwamba ni kichaa pekee yake ambaye anaweza kuichallange IGA kwa sheria za ndani ambayo jamaa waliitumia Natural Wealth & Resource(Permanent Sovereignty) 2017.

Na hukumu pia imesoma the same,mimi sio mwanasheria lakini by logic tu niliona haya mapungufu.

Nocheki nikupe andiko husika.Kaka

+255746726484

Sent from my Infinix X6511B using JamiiForums mobile app

 

[Lord denning]

Nimeongea sana hapa nikaitwa chawa mara sijui mzanzibari.

Finally Mahakama imemaliza kila kitu.

Kuna watu tuna heshima zetu kwenye sekta hii nyeti ya Sheria. Tuheshimiwe

 

[comte]

Niliandika leo andiko kabla ya hukumu ya mahakama kutoka.

Nimeandika andiko hilo saa moja na madakika asubuhi,one of my argent ilikuwa ni hii hii kwamba ni kichaa pekee yake ambaye anaweza kuichallange IGA kwa sheria za ndani ambayo jamaa waliitumia Natural Wealth & Resource(Permanent Sovereignty) 2017.

Na hukumu pia imesoma the same,mimi sio mwanasheria lakini by logic tu niliona haya mapungufu.

Nocheki nikupe andiko husika.Kaka

+255746726484

Sent from my Infinix X6511B using JamiiForums mobile app

Ukweli husimama siku zote, na nia ovu hushindwa mara zote. Mwanasheria mkuu wa serikali aliiiona hili na akasema anafurahi kwamba watu wameamua kwenda mahakamani, wacha tukapambane huko; wamepambana na ukweli umejulikana

 

[comte]

Madini yote haya wanatokea watu wanadai, bila ushahidi, eti majaji wamepigiwa simu kwasababu tu mahakama imeamua kinyume na matakwa yao!!

Wanafanya face saving- ni haki yao ila ndo imeisha hiyo

 

[The Boss]

Nimeongea sana hapa nikaitwa chawa mara sijui mzanzibari.

Finally Mahakama imemaliza kila kitu.

Kuna watu tuna heshima zetu kwenye sekta hii nyeti ya Sheria. Tuheshimiwe

Sasa matusi yanaenda mahakamani na Kwa majaji...
Wanaotukana hata kuelewa Tu hukumu hawaelewi

 

[mgunga pori]

Technicality zime ipa ushindi state

 

[Lord denning]

Sasa matusi yanaenda mahakamani na Kwa majaji...
Wanaotukana hata kuelewa Tu hukumu hawaelewi

Nilichogundua hii combination ya Ufipa fc na Team Mwendazake ni kikundi cha wahuni wenye msongo wa mawazo. Depression ni tatizo sana nabii wa Jf

 

[comte]

Technicality zime ipa ushindi state

Mkuu hii siyo TKO ni KO Mohamed Ali style, yaani round zote 11 zimepiganwa na ngumi ya mwisho mtu kaenda chini na hakuna kusimama tena. HUKUMU INASEMA:


In the upshot of all this we find this, petition barren of fruits.Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. Since this is a public interestmatter, we do not find any justification for granting of costs. We, therefore,make no order as to costs.
Order accordingly.
DATED at MBEYA this 10th August, 2023.

 

[Hijja Madava]

Niliandika leo andiko kabla ya hukumu ya mahakama kutoka.

Nimeandika andiko hilo saa moja na madakika asubuhi,one of my argent ilikuwa ni hii hii kwamba ni kichaa pekee yake ambaye anaweza kuichallange IGA kwa sheria za ndani ambayo jamaa waliitumia Natural Wealth & Resource(Permanent Sovereignty) 2017.

Na hukumu pia imesoma the same,mimi sio mwanasheria lakini by logic tu niliona haya mapungufu.

Nocheki nikupe andiko husika.Kaka

+255746726484

Sent from my Infinix X6511B using JamiiForums mobile app

We Kama nani kwa mfano

 

[Philomathy]

Regarding the contention that Article 4 (2) of the IGA is violative of theAct No. 5 of 2017 and the constitutional provisions on sovereignty, our unflustered view is that the petitioners' construction of the said provision is ill-thought-out, if not misleading.

Our unfleeting reading of Article 4 (2)brings out the fact that, whereas the URT will have the obligation of relayinginformation on investment opportunities that may be available, such information does not convey any automatic or outright privilege or right by DPW or the Emirate of Dubai to invest in the opportunity in respect of which information has been relayed. Any subsequent engagement is subject to submission of proposal and evaluation of its viability, singly, or alongside other proposals.

We do not find anything that obligates the URT to grant or award anything subsequent to the passage of information on the investmentopportunities. It is our construction that "to inform" conveys no othermeaning than "to make one aware of something". It is merely an act ofimparting knowledge especially of facts or occurrences {See:httpsj//www.merriarrhwebster.com)■ By conveying information, nothingtakes away the URT's ability and right to weigh the feasibility of any offersand proposals submitted, either by Dubai or by any prospective investor onthe area of investment in respect of which information under Article 4 (2)has been passed. As we consider this petitioners' contention drifting from the actualconstruction and intent, we also find the argument that this provision grantsexclusivity to Dubai off the mark.

Information to Dubai does not curtail orprevent the URT from passing the same information to other strategic andwilling investors.

It is merely an alert in order to get to know what is onoffer. We reckon that passage or dissemination of information on trade andinvestment opportunities is daily done by embassies across the globe andthat cannot be said to be violative of any country's law.

It is in view thereof,that we consider the submission by the petitioners lacking the necessarycutting edge which would convince us to hold otherwise.

Nothing new expected from these compromised Courts by Politicians.

There's no checks and balances btn 3 pillars of the state.

Always Executive has more power than the other(s).

Parliament/Courts has nothing to do with Executive's decision.

This is kleptocratic government under benevolent dictator Samia Suluhu.

 

[Fundi Mchundo]

Regarding the contention that Article 4 (2) of the IGA is violative of theAct No. 5 of 2017 and the constitutional provisions on sovereignty, our unflustered view is that the petitioners' construction of the said provision is ill-thought-out, if not misleading.

Our unfleeting reading of Article 4 (2)brings out the fact that, whereas the URT will have the obligation of relayinginformation on investment opportunities that may be available, such information does not convey any automatic or outright privilege or right by DPW or the Emirate of Dubai to invest in the opportunity in respect of which information has been relayed. Any subsequent engagement is subject to submission of proposal and evaluation of its viability, singly, or alongside other proposals.

We do not find anything that obligates the URT to grant or award anything subsequent to the passage of information on the investmentopportunities. It is our construction that "to inform" conveys no othermeaning than "to make one aware of something". It is merely an act ofimparting knowledge especially of facts or occurrences {See:httpsj//www.merriarrhwebster.com)■ By conveying information, nothingtakes away the URT's ability and right to weigh the feasibility of any offersand proposals submitted, either by Dubai or by any prospective investor onthe area of investment in respect of which information under Article 4 (2)has been passed. As we consider this petitioners' contention drifting from the actualconstruction and intent, we also find the argument that this provision grantsexclusivity to Dubai off the mark.

Information to Dubai does not curtail orprevent the URT from passing the same information to other strategic andwilling investors.

It is merely an alert in order to get to know what is onoffer. We reckon that passage or dissemination of information on trade andinvestment opportunities is daily done by embassies across the globe andthat cannot be said to be violative of any country's law.

It is in view thereof,that we consider the submission by the petitioners lacking the necessarycutting edge which would convince us to hold otherwise.

Kuna maneno humu kwangu ni magumu kuyaelewa. Maneno hayo ni:1) flustered 2) unfleeting na 3) cutting edge. Aidha, naomba nionyeshwe walipozungumzia milki ya ardhi?

Amandla...

 

[denooJ]

Nimeongea sana hapa nikaitwa chawa mara sijui mzanzibari.

Finally Mahakama imemaliza kila kitu.

Kuna watu tuna heshima zetu kwenye sekta hii nyeti ya Sheria. Tuheshimiwe

Mahakama inakiri kuna mapungufu yakarekebishwe, ajabu chawa unajisifu.

Usilazimishe heshima.

 

[comte]

Kuna maneno humu kwangu ni magumu kuyaelewa. Maneno hayo ni:1) flustered 2) unfleeting na 3) cutting edge. Aidha, naomba nionyeshwe walipozungumzia milki ya ardhi?

Amandla...

ardhi haikuwa hoja ya kuamriwa hii iko tu kwenye majukwaa ya wasema chochote

 

[Fundi Mchundo]

ardhi haikuwa hoja ya kuamriwa hii iko tu kwenye majukwaa ya wasema chochote

Sasa mbona umeiweka kana vile uamuzi wa Mahakama umegusa pia milki ya ardhi? Au ulikuwa unataka kutupotosha?

Amandla...