Is the Court of Appeal Ruling Per Incurium?

[Devils Advocate]

My fellow lawyers,
The recent rulling by the Court of Appeal on the independent candidate has left more to be desired. If you read the rulling and interprete the law you will realise that a bench of 7 justices of Appeal could have decided the matter per incurium. Here is what the court decided in page 4 of the rulling:
However, for the avoidance of doubt we wish to refresh the memories of the learned Deputy Attorney General and his team that an appeal does not operate an automatic stay. So, the law as it is at the moment and onward to the General Elections in October, is what the High Court has decided, that is, independent candidates are
allowed.

But if you read the Basic Duites and enforcement Act the law on which Mtikila used to file his petition the it reads in Section 14(3):
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code or of any other law to the contrary, where in proceedings under this Act which do not involve continuous breach or personal injuries, the Government files a notice of intention to appeal against any decision of a court, the notice shall, when entered, operate as a stay of execution upon the decision sought to be appealed against.


My question is: How can our highest court make such a blatant mistake?



MY REQUEST: LETS DEBATE THIS AND FINDER THE RATIO DECIDENDI OF THE RULING.

 

[Herg]

Nadhani maloya watakua wachache sana hapa jamvini. Ngoja tuone.

 

[Ngambo Ngali]

But if you read the Basic Duites and enforcement Act the law on which Mtikila used to file his petition the it reads in Section 14(3):
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code or of any other law to the contrary, where in proceedings under this Act which do not involve continuous breach or personal injuries, the Government files a notice of intention to appeal against any decision of a court, the notice shall, when entered, operate as a stay of execution upon the decision sought to be appealed against.

the answer is in red

 

[Kaa la Moto]

Kuna lawyers wengi sana hapa. Nina hakika tutafaidi shule tokana na changamoto hii.

 

[Mponjoli]

Hapa virai na vishazi kwetu sisi paralegal

 

[Devils Advocate]

the answer is in red

Which continuous breach are we talking about in the Mtikila's case? I thought so in the first place but it has no limbs to stand. Kindly tell me.

 

[Ngambo Ngali]

Which continuous breach are we talking about in the Mtikila's case? I thought so in the first place but it has no limbs to stand. Kindly tell me.

1. Watu wamekuwa wakikosa haki zao za kuchagua wagombea wasio na vyama toka katiba ilivyotoa haki hiyo na wataendelea kukosa haki hiyo kama sheria itaendelea kuwa kama ilivyo hiyo ni continous breach inayozungumziwa.

2. As to the second about the limbs to stand on bado sijaelewa una maana gani.

3. Nadhani hii sio kesi ya mtikila yeye kafungua kwa niaba ya watanzania wote na hukumu inatugusa watanzania wote.

 

[Buchanan]

Mimi nakubaliana na hoja ya "continuous breach" kwa maana kwamba jamii nzima ya watanzania inaendelea kunyimwa haki zao za msingi za kugombea nafasi za uongozi eti mpaka wateuliwe na chama cha siasa, kwa hiyo nakubaliana na uamuzi wa majaji kwamba "an appeal does not operate an automatic stay!"

 

[Buchanan]

Learned bros and sisters, vipi mbona mmekuwa kimya na mjadala huu? Hoja zimeisha?

 

[M-bongotz]

My fellow lawyers,
The recent rulling by the Court of Appeal on the independent candidate has left more to be desired. If you read the rulling and interprete the law you will realise that a bench of 7 justices of Appeal could have decided the matter per incurium. Here is what the court decided in page 4 of the rulling:
However, for the avoidance of doubt we wish to refresh the memories of the learned Deputy Attorney General and his team that an appeal does not operate an automatic stay. So, the law as it is at the moment and onward to the General Elections in October, is what the High Court has decided, that is, independent candidates are
allowed.

But if you read the Basic Duites and enforcement Act the law on which Mtikila used to file his petition the it reads in Section 14(3):
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code or of any other law to the contrary, where in proceedings under this Act which do not involve continuous breach or personal injuries, the Government files a notice of intention to appeal against any decision of a court, the notice shall, when entered, operate as a stay of execution upon the decision sought to be appealed against.


My question is: How can our highest court make such a blatant mistake?



MY REQUEST: LETS DEBATE THIS AND FINDER THE RATIO DECIDENDI OF THE RULING.

Kwa hili suala interpretation ya hiyo Section 14(3) ya CAP 3 imekaa kimtego sana, ukiingia head first ni lazima utadhani kuwa wale wazee wametoa ruling per incurium, hiyo section ina conditions ambazo kama zitakuwa zinaexist basi notice of appeal ndipo itakapokuwa na effect ya stay of execution ambazo condition hizo ni "proceedings which do not involve continuous breach or personal injuries" sasa kama ile notice ya appeal ya serikali ingeachwa iwe na effect ya stay of execution ina maana kungelikuwa na breach of hiyo right ya kushiriki uchaguzi kama mgombea huru.,so kwa kuprotect hiyo right ile hukumu ya High Court inaendelea kusimama hadi hapo itakapotenguliwa na Mahakama ya Rufaa..

 

[Buchanan]

sasa kama ile notice ya appeal ya serikali ingeachwa iwe na effect ya stay of execution ina maana kungelikuwa na breach of hiyo right ya kushiriki uchaguzi kama mgombea huru.,so kwa kuprotect hiyo right ile hukumu ya High Court inaendelea kusimama hadi hapo itakapotenguliwa na Mahakama ya Rufaa..[/FONT]

Sure! Namshukuru aliyeleta thread hii, amenifumbua macho sana kwenye hii ruling ya mgombea binafsi!

 

[mayenga]

Kwa hili suala interpretation ya hiyo Section 14(3) ya CAP 3 imekaa kimtego sana, ukiingia head first ni lazima utadhani kuwa wale wazee wametoa ruling per incurium, hiyo section ina conditions ambazo kama zitakuwa zinaexist basi notice of appeal ndipo itakapokuwa na effect ya stay of execution ambazo condition hizo ni "proceedings which do not involve continuous breach or personal injuries" sasa kama ile notice ya appeal ya serikali ingeachwa iwe na effect ya stay of execution ina maana kungelikuwa na breach of hiyo right ya kushiriki uchaguzi kama mgombea huru.,so kwa kuprotect hiyo right ile hukumu ya High Court inaendelea kusimama hadi hapo itakapotenguliwa na Mahakama ya Rufaa..

Sioni mkanganyiko katika hili,The Court of Appeal in its recent ruling was aware of the existence of the provision of the Basic Rights and Duties,they are aware that the notice of Appeal acts as a stay of execution,but in itself is not AN AUTOMATIC STAY,to mean that the consitutionality and legality of the decision of the High Court still unchallenged,So the Independent candidates in that premises are allowed.But the second limb of that decision is that the Court of Appeal was not constituted to challenge the law,rather to emphasize that what was expected to be challenged is unchallenged yet hence legal and operative,until annulled or reversed by the Court of the highest ladder,which is the Court of Appeal itself.

 

[alexbm]

Naunga mkono hoja ya Buchanan hapo juu. Msingi wa taarifa ya rufani yaani 'notice of appeal' kutumika kama zuio la utekelezaji wa amri ya mahakama itokanayo na humumu, yaani 'stay of execution' chini ya kifungu cha 14(3) cha sheria ya Basic Duites and enforcement Act ni kutokuwepo kwa continuous breach au personal injuries. Sina shaka kwamba hoja ya personal injuries haiwezi kuibuka hapa kwani shauri hili halikuhusu jambo hilo tangu awali. Swali tunalopaswa kujiuliza ni je, kwakutokutekeleza amri ya mahakama kuu ya kuwepo kwa mgombea binafsi kunatafsirika kuwa ni continuous breach? Labda tuanze kwa kujiuliza swali jingine dogo hapa. Ni wakati gani breach inakua CONTINUOUS na ni wakati upi breach si CONTINUOUS? Kutofautisha dhana hizi mbili, sitapenda kutoa maoni marefu, ila yatosha kutoa tu mifano miwili mitatu hivi ambayo itarahisisha wadau mbalimbali kufahamu dhana hizi mbili kirahisi. Mfano wa kwanza: Fikiria kuwa mahakama X imetoa hukumu na amri kuwa Z amekashifiwa na Y, na hivyo Z anatakiwa kulipwa Tshs. milioni 40. Katika mfano huu utaona kuwa kashfa si endelevu au CONTINUOUS hata kama mahakama itaweka ukomo wa malipo hayo ya milioni 40. Mfano wa pili, fikiria tena mahakama X imetoa hukumu na amri kuwa ni haki kwa mtu kutoa maoni yake binafsi na hivyo serikali inapaswa kuweka utaratibu wa utekelezaji wa haki hiyo ya uhuru wa kutoa maoni binafsi ndani ya kipindi cha mwezi mmoja. Hapa ni dhahiri kuwa wakati wote kabla ya utaratibu huo kuwekwa hakutakua na uhuru wa mtu kutoa maoni yake binafsi. sasa hapa mimi naona uendelevu wa kukatizwa haki ya kutoa maoni binafsi yaani CONTINUOUS BREACH.

Mfano wangu wa pili unafanana moja kwa moja na shauri la mchungaji Mtikila hapo juu, hasa ikizingatiwa kuwa haki ya mgombea binafsi imetolewa na mahakama kuu ya Tanzania. Mbali na jambo hilo, Mahakama Kuu iliweka wazi katika uamuzi wake wa majaji watatu kuwa serikali itekeleze uamuzi huo kwa kuweka utaaratibu wa mgombea binafsi ktk kipindi uamuzi ulipotolewa na kabla ya uchaguzi mkuu wa 2010. Ni maoni yangu kuwa kwakua utaratibu huo haujawepo ni dhahiri kuwa breach ni CONTINUOUS hivyo dhana ya NOTICE OF APPEAL kuoperate as AUTOMATIC STAY OF EXECUTION haipo hapa.

Serikali ilipaswa kufanya maombi rasmi ya kusimamisha utekelezaji wa uamuzi wa mahakama kuu kwakutoa sababu za msingi na si kulalamika katika vyombo vya habari na kutoa matamshi yanayoashiria ukiukwaji wa amri ya mahakama.

 

[Devils Advocate]

While i want to agree with you that the basis of the discussion should not be on personal injury, i also see a problem on the continous breach. Let us get to the root of the problem. Since the High Court made a decision that the constituion has to be changed before the 2010 election it actually provided a time frame. That timeframe can be anytime before the 2010 elections. That means it must be before the parliament is dissolved in July 2010. (only then it can be considered a breach, not even continous breach. i must say many continous breaches are tortious in nature and not constituional and this is where the problem arises).

Therefore i do believe the Court of Appeal may have gone astray in this one.

Naunga mkono hoja ya Buchanan hapo juu. Msingi wa taarifa ya rufani yaani 'notice of appeal' kutumika kama zuio la utekelezaji wa amri ya mahakama itokanayo na humumu, yaani 'stay of execution' chini ya kifungu cha 14(3) cha sheria ya Basic Duites and enforcement Act ni kutokuwepo kwa continuous breach au personal injuries. Sina shaka kwamba hoja ya personal injuries haiwezi kuibuka hapa kwani shauri hili halikuhusu jambo hilo tangu awali. Swali tunalopaswa kujiuliza ni je, kwakutokutekeleza amri ya mahakama kuu ya kuwepo kwa mgombea binafsi kunatafsirika kuwa ni continuous breach? Labda tuanze kwa kujiuliza swali jingine dogo hapa. Ni wakati gani breach inakua CONTINUOUS na ni wakati upi breach si CONTINUOUS? Kutofautisha dhana hizi mbili, sitapenda kutoa maoni marefu, ila yatosha kutoa tu mifano miwili mitatu hivi ambayo itarahisisha wadau mbalimbali kufahamu dhana hizi mbili kirahisi. Mfano wa kwanza: Fikiria kuwa mahakama X imetoa hukumu na amri kuwa Z amekashifiwa na Y, na hivyo Z anatakiwa kulipwa Tshs. milioni 40. Katika mfano huu utaona kuwa kashfa si endelevu au CONTINUOUS hata kama mahakama itaweka ukomo wa malipo hayo ya milioni 40. Mfano wa pili, fikiria tena mahakama X imetoa hukumu na amri kuwa ni haki kwa mtu kutoa maoni yake binafsi na hivyo serikali inapaswa kuweka utaratibu wa utekelezaji wa haki hiyo ya uhuru wa kutoa maoni binafsi ndani ya kipindi cha mwezi mmoja. Hapa ni dhahiri kuwa wakati wote kabla ya utaratibu huo kuwekwa hakutakua na uhuru wa mtu kutoa maoni yake binafsi. sasa hapa mimi naona uendelevu wa kukatizwa haki ya kutoa maoni binafsi yaani CONTINUOUS BREACH.

Mfano wangu wa pili unafanana moja kwa moja na shauri la mchungaji Mtikila hapo juu, hasa ikizingatiwa kuwa haki ya mgombea binafsi imetolewa na mahakama kuu ya Tanzania. Mbali na jambo hilo, Mahakama Kuu iliweka wazi katika uamuzi wake wa majaji watatu kuwa serikali itekeleze uamuzi huo kwa kuweka utaaratibu wa mgombea binafsi ktk kipindi uamuzi ulipotolewa na kabla ya uchaguzi mkuu wa 2010. Ni maoni yangu kuwa kwakua utaratibu huo haujawepo ni dhahiri kuwa breach ni CONTINUOUS hivyo dhana ya NOTICE OF APPEAL kuoperate as AUTOMATIC STAY OF EXECUTION haipo hapa.

Serikali ilipaswa kufanya maombi rasmi ya kusimamisha utekelezaji wa uamuzi wa mahakama kuu kwakutoa sababu za msingi na si kulalamika katika vyombo vya habari na kutoa matamshi yanayoashiria ukiukwaji wa amri ya mahakama.

 

[Buchanan]

(only then it can be considered a breach, not even continous breach. i must say many continous breaches are tortious in nature and not constituional and this is where the problem arises).

Therefore i do believe the Court of Appeal may have gone astray in this one.

Mimi sikubaliani na maoni yako kwamba "continuous breaches are tortious in nature!" Turejee kwenye kifungu cha 14 (3) cha Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act, Cap. 3 (RE 2002) ambacho kinasomeka kama ifuatavyo:
"Notwithstanding the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code or of any other law to the contrary, where in proceedings under this Act which do not involve continuous breach or personal injuries, the Government files a notice of intention to appeal against any decision of a court, the notice shall, when entered, operate as a stay of execution upon the decision sought to be appealed against." (Emphasis supplied).
Ukiangalia wording ya kifungu hicho kuna maneno "continuous breach or personal injuries!" Kwa maoni yangu ni kwamba personal breach inaangukia kwenye tort kama ulivyodai wewe na continuous breach ni breach ambayo ni general in nature INCLUDING CONSTITUTIONAL BREACH!

 

[mbasajohn]

Hi it is ma first time to post any comment and today i have this to say: "reading from the law which provide the principle to which our learned brother used to stand and give his opinion am willing to say that my fellow council mis direcred himself in failing to relise that the interpretation of continous breach as provided in the law apply to any continuus breach of the right in question at the present case if the court of appeal could have allowed the law as provided in the national election act could led to continuous breach of the said right. therefore the ruling of the court of appeal to that end is within the perview which limit the power of the AG appeal to make any appeal by him to opperate as a bar to a former decision to opperate pending appeal"