Legal documents na uchambuzi wa masuala ya kisheria hapa

Mkuu Retired naweza kukujibu kama ifuatavyo:


Can the arbitrary actions of the SPEAKER from his absolute power be subjected to judicial review?


Kiongozi,

Swali lako nitalijibu kwa Kiswahili, na inapobidi nitachanganya na kingereza. Katika kujibu swali lako nitajikita zaidi katika kadhia iliyotokea hivi karibuni bungeni, yaani ya John Mnyika kufukuzwa bungeni na kusimamishwa kuhudhuria baadhi ya vikao vya bunge la Jamhuri wa Muungano. Pia nitajikita kwa yaliyowakuta wabunge Halima Mdee na Esther Bulaya. Hii ni kwa sababu swali lako halijaweka nadharia maalum (specific).

Kiongozi na ndugu Wana JF wote,

Spika wa bunge la JMT kapewa mamlaka na Katiba ya JMT, na mamlaka hayo kupanuliwa au/na kufafanuliwa zaidi na Kanuni za Kudumu za Bunge (Kanuni). Mamlaka hayo yanalindwa pia na Katiba na Kanuni. Spika wa Bunge la JMT anayo mamlaka katika bunge ambalo yeye ndiye kiongozi wake, ambayo yamegawanyika katika sehemu maalum mbili, Mamlaka ya lazima na mamlaka ya hiyari (mandatory and discretionary powers).

Jamhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania ni dola yenye mihimili mitatu, utawala, bunge ma mahakama. Mamlaka ya mhimili wa mahakama, pamoja ma mambo mengine, ni kupitia maamuzi ya mihilili migine katika utendaji haki, ikiwemo mahakama yenyewe. Hii ndiyo inaitwa Judicial Review. Judicial review hufanyika ili kujiridhisha kama haki imetendeka katika utekelezaji wa majukumu ya chombo cha dola yaliyotolewa au yaliyopo kisheria.

Katika kutoa maamuzi yake katika suala hili la judicial review lazima mahakama ijiridhishe na uwepo wa mambo yafuatayo:

1. Uamuzi umetolewa na mamlaka ya dola (Public authority).

2. Mamlaka ya dola ilitoa uamuzi huo katika kutekeleza majukumu yake iliyopewa kisheria.

3. Hakuna namna nyingine ambayo mlalamikaji angeweza kufanya zaidi ya kuomba judicial review.

4. Kinacholalamikiwa kufanyika au kutofanyika kiwe ni cha lazima (mandatory) kufanywa au kutofanywa, kisiwa cha hiari (discretional).

5.

Kama nilivyoeleza hapo juu, spika wa bunge anatekeleza majukumu yake kwa mamlaka aliyopewa kisheria. Kanuni za kudumu za bunge (2016), kanuni ya 67 (1) na (2) zinampa mamlaka spika kukataza majadiliano na anaweza kumkataza mbunge yeyote kuzungumza. Kanuni hizi zinasomeka hivi:

67.-(1) Spika anaweza kulihutubia Bunge wakati wowote na kwa

ajili hiyo, anaweza kumkatiza Mbunge yeyote anayezungumza.

(2) Endapo Spika atasimama wakati wa mjadala, na kuanza

kuzungumza, Mbunge yeyote ambaye atakuwa anazungumza

wakati huo au ambaye atakuwa amesimama mahali pake akisubiri

kuanza kuzungumza, ataketi mahali pake, na Bunge litabaki kimya

ili Spika aweze kutoa maelekezo au taarifa yake.

Kanuni ya 68 inatoa taratibu mbalimbali na taratibu mbalimbali. Kanuni za 68 (4) na (5) zinasomeka hivi:

4) Spika anaweza, ama papo hapo kutoa uamuzi wake juu

ya jambo la utaratibu lililotajwa au kuahirisha uamuzi ili alifikirie

zaidi jambo hilo na kutoa uamuzi baadaye au kutoa uamuzi na

baadaye kutoa sababu za uamuzi huo, vyovyote atakavyoamua.

(5) Katika kufikia uamuzi wake, Spika anaweza kuitaka Kamati

ya Kudumu ya Kanuni za Bunge au Kamati nyingine yoyote ya Bunge

impe ushauri kuhusu jambo husika.​

Mbali na hayo, spika amepewa majukumu na mamlaka ya kudhibiti fujo na kusimamia utaratibu bungeni. Kanuni namba 72 (1), (2) na (4) zinasomeka namna hii:

72.-(1) Spika atakuwa na wajibu wa kuhakikisha kuwa, utaratibu

bora unafuatwa Bungeni, na uamuzi wa Spika kuhusu jambo lolote

la utaratibu utakuwa ni wa mwisho.

(2) Mbunge atakayekiuka utaratibu uliowekwa na Kanuni

hizi anaweza papo hapo kutakiwa na Spika afuate utaratibu na

vilevile Mbunge mwingine yeyote anaweza kusimama na

kumfahamisha Spika kuhusu ukiukwaji wa utaratibu huo na katika

kufanya hivyo, atalazimika kutaja Kanuni ya Bunge iliyoweka

utaratibu uliokiukwa.

(4) Endapo Mbunge atafanya kosa ambalo alikwishawahi

kuadhibiwa kwa mujibu wa fasili ya (2) na (3) ya Kanuni hii, Spika

atalipeleka suala lake kwenye Kamati ya Haki, Maadili na Madaraka

ya Bunge kwa mujibu wa masharti ya Kanuni ya 71 ya Kanuni hizi ili

Kamati hiyo ilishauri Bunge kuhusu hatua za kinidhamu zinazostahili

kuchukuliwa dhidi ya Mbunge huyo.
Kanuni ya 68 (10) inampa spika kuwa na kauli na uamuzi wa mwisho. Kanuni hii inasema:​

(10) Uamuzi wa Spika kuhusu suala lolote la utaratibu utakuwa

ni wa mwisho.


Kwa sababu bunge ni chombo chenye mamlaka yake na utaratibu wake, adhabu zimewekwa kisheria kwa yeyote anaekiua utaraitibu na utaratibu wa utekelezaji wake umewekwa. Utaratibu huu upo katika kanuni ya 73. Kanuni za 73 (1) na (2) sinasomeka:

73.-(1) Mbunge au Waziri atakayezungumzia jambo au mambo

ambayo hayaruhusiwi na Kanuni hizi, anaweza kuamriwa na Spika

au Naibu Spika au Mwenyekiti akatishe hotuba yake na kukaa mahali

pake.

(2) Endapo Mbunge au Waziri atatumia maneno au lugha

isiyotakiwa Bungeni, yaani lugha ya matusi, usafihi, uchokozi au

lugha ya maudhi na akitakiwa na Spika ajirekebishe kwa kufuta

maneno au lugha hiyo atakataa kufanya hivyo, Spika anaweza

kumwamuru Mbunge huyo atoke mara moja nje ya Ukumbi wa

Bunge na abaki huko nje kwa muda wote uliosalia wa kikao cha

siku hiyo.

Bunge nalo limepewa mamlaka ya kutoa adhabu kufuatia ukiukwaji wa taratibu au utovu wa nidhamu. Kanuni namba 74 (1), (2) na (3)(b) zinahusika. Hizi zinasomeka kama ifuatavyo:

74.-(1) Spika anaweza kutaja jina la Mbunge kwamba amedharau

Mamlaka ya Spika na kisha kupeleka jina hilo kwenye Kamati ya

Haki, Maadili na Madaraka ya Bunge ikiwa:-

(a) kwa maneno au vitendo, Mbunge huyo

anaonesha dharau kwa mamlaka ya Spika; au

(b) Mbunge huyo atafanya kitendo chochote cha

makusudi cha kudharau Shughuli ya Bunge au

Mbunge yeyote anayeongoza shughuli hiyo.

(2) Ikiwa maneno au vitendo vya Mbunge vilivyoainishwa

katika fasili ya (1) ya Kanuni hii vimetokea wakati Bunge likiwa katika

Kamati ya Bunge Zima, basi Mwenyekiti atasimamisha shughuli za

Kamati na ataagiza Bunge kurudia ili kumpatia Spika fursa ya kutoa

taarifa kwa Bunge kuhusu mwenendo wa Mbunge huyo na

kuwasilisha suala hilo kwenye Kamati ya Haki, Maadili na Madaraka

ya Bunge.

(3) Kamati ya Haki, Maadili na Madaraka ya Bunge itajadili

suala hilo na ikithibitika kuwa Mbunge husika ametenda kosa

inaweza kushauri kwamba:-

(a) ikiwa ni kosa lake la kwanza Mbunge huyo

asihudhurie vikao vya Bunge visivyozidi kumi; au

(b) ikiwa ni kosa lake la pili au zaidi Mbunge huyo

asihudhurie vikao vya Bunge visivyozidi ishirini;​

Mbali na hayo yote, Bunge limejiwekea miiko yake lenyewe. Bungeni kuna mambo ambayo hayaruhusiwi, miongoni mwa hayo ni yale yaliyomo katika kanuni ya 64 (1)(e), (f) na (g). kanuni hizo ni kama ilivyoainishwa hapa:

64.-(1) Bila ya kuathiri masharti ya Ibara ya 100 ya Katiba yanayolinda

na kuhifadhi uhuru wa mawazo na majadiliano katika Bunge,

Mbunge:-

(a)

(d)

(e) hatazungumzia mwenendo wa Rais, Spika, Mbunge, Jaji, Hakimu au mtu mwingine yeyote anayeshughulikia utoaji wa haki, isipokuwa tu kama kumetolewa hoja mahususi kuhusu jambo husika;

(f) hatamsema vibaya au kutoa lugha ya matusi kwa Mbunge au mtu mwingine yeyote;

(g) hatatumia lugha ya kuudhi au inayodhalilisha

watu wengine.

Kwa hiyo basi ni dhairi kwamba spika wa bunge hakuenda kinyume na kanuni yoyote ya bunge kwa kumtoa mbunge Mnyika nje ya ukumbi wa bunge na kutoa adhabu palepale pasipo uwepo wa Mnyika mwenyewe. Pia spika alitumia misingi ya kanuni kuwashtaki Halima Mdee na Esther Bulaya kwenye kamati ya maadili ya bunge, na uamuzi uliotoka ni sahihi.

Sasa tunarudi kwenye swali letu. Tumeona hapo juu namna judicial review inaweza fanyika, yaani zile test tano zilizoainishwa. Spika alikuwa anafanya kazi ya mamlaka ya dola, na alikuwa anafanya maamuzi kulingana na utaratibu.

Pia judicial review, ikumbukwe sana, haitakuwa na meno kama kilichofanywa kilikuwa ni hatua za kinidhamu. Hapa ieleweke kwamba hatua ya kinidhamu ni ile ya kumchukulia hatua (kutoa uamuzi) mtu ambae ameonekana kafanya kosa dhahili pasipo kumpa mda wa kujitetea. Mnyika hakupewa mda wa kujitetea, Halima na Esther suala lao lilipelekwa kwenye kamati.

Kama chombo kinachotoa uamuzi kinatakiwa kumuita mshukiwa ili ajitetee, hii huitwa quasi judicial action na kimsingi inaweza pitiwa na mahakama katika judicial review.

Tukirudi nyuma, kanuni za buge zimetungwa kwa mamlaka ya katiba, kama bunge lenyewe lilivyo na kiti cha spika kilivyo kwa mujibu wa katiba. Ibara ya 100 ya katiba ya JMT inatoa uhuru wa majadiliano wa shughuli bungeni kwa mujibu wa kanuni na taratibu. Pia kifungu hiki kinatoa zuio kwa mahakama au chombo chochote kuhoji yaliyotokea bungini wakati bunge lipo katika kazi yake. Ibara hii inasimeka ifuatavyo:

100. Uhuru wa majadiliano na utaratibu wa shughuli Sheria Na. 15 ya 1984 ib. 14

(1) Kutakuwa na uhuru wa mawazo, majadiliano na utaratibu katika Bunge, na uhuru huo hautavunjwa wala kuhojiwa na chombo chochote katika Jamhuri ya Muungano, au katika mahakama au mahali penginepo nje ya Bunge.

(2) Bila ya kuathiri Katiba hii au masharti ya sheria nyingine yoyote inayohusika, Mbunge yeyote hatashtakiwa au kufunguliwa shauri la madai mahakamani kutokana na jambo lolote alilolisema au kulifanyw ndani ya Bunge au alilolileta Bungeni kwa njia ya maombi, muswada, hoja au vinginevyo.

Kwa vyovyote vile basi Bunge, ikiwa ni pamoja na spika wake, haliko subject to judicial review. Hii ni kwa sababu ya kinga iliyowekewa na katiba. Ikitokwa spika amekuwa so arbitrary kama swali lilivyouliza, hakuna namna ya kufanyia uamuzi wake judicial review. Kuna mamna wanasheria huwa wanapinga baadhi ya vifungu vya sheria zikiwemo ibara za katiba kwa sababu zinakuwa zinakinzana ka Katiba (unconstitutional). Hata hivyo, hata kwa kutotilia maanani ibara ya 100 ya katiba ambayo mwingine anaweza kusema iko kinyume na katiba kwa kuzuia mamlaka ya mahakama, bado spika hatakuwa subject wa judicial review kwa sababu kafuata utaratibu, na kama kuna malalamiko kwamba katumia vibaya madaraka yae labda kwa sababu “Katoa uamuzi wa kukurupuka na uonevu/chuki” bado yuko upande salama. Maamuzi ya kumfukuza mtu bungeni, mbali tu ya kuwa yapo katika kanuni, yanatekelezwa katika misingi ya uamuzi huru au hiari. (Discretional).


Karibuni sana
Dragon asante kwa maelezo ya kitaalamu. Yoye uliyoyaandika yako valid at all fours within the legal philosophy!! Lakini actually hapo ndipo pa kuanzia. Mahakama ndiyo imepewa mamlaka ya kuangalia kama HAKI in all aspects of life inatendekea. Hivyo sheria yoyote inayotungwa kuiwezesha haki sitendeke, hiyo outright ni BATILI!
Nadhani wataalamu kama nyinyi mnaweza kuanzia hapo!. Spika akiamua kuamrisha kuwa piga ua huyu ndani ya bunge asihojiwe, NO! Mtoe nje Mnyika, akikaidi vynja miguu, wakavunja, asihojiwe! NO. Hapo ndipo pa kuanzia! Nadhani context ya sentensi yangu hiyo ya mwisho unaipata!
India Mahakama ilikataa kitu kama hicho hapa Tanzania.
Tatizo hatuna Majaji wenye kufikiri philosophically katika haya mambo. Majaji kama Mwalusanya, Lugakingira, Katiti, Kyando, Mroso and few others, wangelitoa reasoned solution kwa hili!
 
Dragon asante kwa maelezo ya kitaalamu. Yoye uliyoyaandika yako valid at all fours within the legal philosophy!! Lakini actually hapo ndipo pa kuanzia. Mahakama ndiyo imepewa mamlaka ya kuangalia kama HAKI in all aspects of life inatendekea. Hivyo sheria yoyote inayotungwa kuiwezesha haki sitendeke, hiyo outright ni BATILI!
Nadhani wataalamu kama nyinyi mnaweza kuanzia hapo!. Spika akiamua kuamrisha kuwa piga ua huyu ndani ya bunge asihojiwe, NO! Mtoe nje Mnyika, akikaidi vynja miguu, wakavunja, asihojiwe! NO. Hapo ndipo pa kuanzia! Nadhani context ya sentensi yangu hiyo ya mwisho unaipata!
India Mahakama ilikataa kitu kama hicho hapa Tanzania.
Tatizo hatuna Majaji wenye kufikiri philosophically katika haya mambo. Majaji kama Mwalusanya, Lugakingira, Katiti, Kyando, Mroso and few others, wangelitoa reasoned solution kwa hili!


Exactly. Mahahaka kama mahakam au majaji hawawezi kuanzisha wenyewe vuguvugu la kutaka check and balance itamalaki kotekote. Wanaotakiwa kuanzisha vuguvugu ni raia wanaoathirika na sheria hizi, wawe wanasiasa, wakulima, wafanyabiashara wafanyakazi, wanasheria, wanafunzi na wengine wengi. Hakuna kinachoshindikana. Mfano mzuri ni marehemu Christopher Mtikila. Huyu alikuwa mstari wa mbele kupinga sheria aliziamini ni kandamizi.
Mahakama ina mamlaka makubwa ya kutamka sheria yoyote au hata vipengele katika katiba kuwa ni batili, vinakandamiza haki za binadamu au zimepitwa na wakati, na vyombo husika vinakuwa havina budi kurekebisha au kufuta kabisa sheria hizo.
 
Exactly. Mahahaka kama mahakam au majaji hawawezi kuanzisha wenyewe vuguvugu la kutaka check and balance itamalaki kotekote. Wanaotakiwa kuanzisha vuguvugu ni raia wanaoathirika na sheria hizi, wawe wanasiasa, wakulima, wafanyabiashara wafanyakazi, wanasheria, wanafunzi na wengine wengi. Hakuna kinachoshindikana. Mfano mzuri ni marehemu Christopher Mtikila. Huyu alikuwa mstari wa mbele kupinga sheria aliziamini ni kandamizi.
Mahakama ina mamlaka makubwa ya kutamka sheria yoyote au hata vipengele katika katiba kuwa ni batili, vinakandamiza haki za binadamu au zimepitwa na wakati, na vyombo husika vinakuwa havina budi kurekebisha au kufuta kabisa sheria hizo.
Dragon asante kwa kuliona hili. Mfano Ndugai ametamka wazi kuwa atawaamrisha askari wampige mbunge atakate kaidi kwa kiburi anasema atatoa ruhusa, mimi ni spika! Huwezi kusema katika hali kaka hiyo mahakama imekuwa barred from interfering the internal affairs of the bunge! !
Rest in peace, Mtikila. Tundu Lisu ana kauthubutu, sina namna ya kumfikia! Sijui kama yupo humu JF! Watu kama hawa wapewe wazo
 
Hapa tutakuwa tunatoa documents (nyaraka) mbalimbali za kisheria ambazo mtu atahitaji kama vile case laws, hasa ambazo ni unreported, legislations, law books n.k.

Binafsi nina e-library kubwa sana ya hivi vitu na sitokuwa mchoyo kwa lolote, isipokuwa kuna baadhi ya vitabu vina kopyright so sitoweka hapa kwenye public itabidi nikutumie kwa email adress au vinginevyo.

Pia mjadala wowote wa kisheria (kwa wanasheria tu) ni vizuri ukawekwa hapa ili tuwekane sawa.

Wanasheria karibuni sana
Dragon bado natafakari hili Bunge la Ndugai!
Parliament is a creature of the constitution and therefore all proceed from the parliament should conform to the dictates of the constitution! Kanuni za bunge kama zinakiuka katiba zinaweza kuwa challenged. Unasemaje Dragon.
 
Dragon bado natafakari hili Bunge la Ndugai!
Parliament is a creature of the constitution and therefore all proceed from the parliament should conform to the dictates of the constitution! Kanuni za bunge kama zinakiuka katiba zinaweza kuwa challenged. Unasemaje Dragon.
Hakuna kisichowezekana. Kama katiba yenyewe tu inaweza kupingwa mahakamani, je ni sheria ipi iliyo juu ya katiba? lakini kwa hili suala kikwazo kikubwa ni ibara ya 100 ya katiba yenyewe. Kanuni za bunge zinaweza kubadilishwa na kuwa rafiki zaidi, lakini bila ya kubadili hiki kifungu cha katiba ni kazi bure. Ibara hii inainyima mahakama uhuru na kutekeleza wajibu wake.
 
Waheshimiwa ninashida na Tanzania Law Reports za mwaka 1983,1984,1985 na 1986. Tafadhali waheshimiwa nisaidieni.

Kuna Application yenye hizo law Reports za hiyo miaka. Ina MB nyingi, inakataa ku upload hapa. Ni vizuri kama utani PM email yako, nitakupatia app hiyo.
Pia @moderators Hii thread ni ya mda mrefu sasa na ina nyaraka nyingi. Ni vizuri ikawekwa kuwa stick thread ili kuhifadhi kumbukumbu vizuri. cc JamiiForums , Active
 
Hapa tutakuwa tunatoa documents (nyaraka) mbalimbali za kisheria ambazo mtu atahitaji kama vile case laws, hasa ambazo ni unreported, legislations, law books n.k.

Binafsi nina e-library kubwa sana ya hivi vitu na sitokuwa mchoyo kwa lolote, isipokuwa kuna baadhi ya vitabu vina kopyright so sitoweka hapa kwenye public itabidi nikutumie kwa email adress au vinginevyo.

Pia mjadala wowote wa kisheria (kwa wanasheria tu) ni vizuri ukawekwa hapa ili tuwekane sawa.

Wanasheria karibuni sana
Mr. Dragon, naomba unisaidie kesi hii please
ABUALY ALIBHAI AZIZI V. BHATIA BROTHERS LTD [2000] TLR 288 .
 
Mkuu Dragoon, na wana jamvi kwa ujumla naomba kupewa urahisi wa kupata haya yafuatayo;

1. Authorities supporting leave of Judicial review

2. Authorities zinazo support kuwa "siting of irrelevant sections or bulk of sections in an application but if the right sections appears and are rightly sited then that act doesn't render an Application invalid.

Kuna case moja ya CITI BANK ( parties wengine nimewasahau) ina support argument hapo juu, ambae nayo naomba anisaidie na kama kuna cases nyingne naomba tafadhali.

Natanguliza shukurani.
 
Mkuu Dragoon, na wana jamvi kwa ujumla naomba kupewa urahisi wa kupata haya yafuatayo;

1. Authorities supporting leave of Judicial review

2. Authorities zinazo support kuwa "siting of irrelevant sections or bulk of sections in an application but if the right sections appears and are rightly sited then that act doesn't render an Application invalid.

Kuna case moja ya CITI BANK ( parties wengine nimewasahau) ina support argument hapo juu, ambae nayo naomba anisaidie na kama kuna cases nyingne naomba tafadhali.

Natanguliza shukurani.
Mkuu njiazote , naomba nianze na ombi lako la kwanza, kwanza nikitoa maelezo kidogo na baada ya hapo nikiambatanisha case laws husika.

ELEMENTARY APPRAISAL OF THE NATURE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATIONS

1. Exclusive procedural rule that a person seeking relief against a public authority in relation to rights protected under public law must, as a general rule, proceed by way of an application for judicial review. Application for judicial review is a two stage process: a leave application followed by a substantive hearing - O'Reilly v Mackman [1983] 2 AC 237. –(attached)

2. It was held that where a person seeks to establish that the decision of a person or body infringes rights which are entitled to protection under public law, he must, as a general rule, proceed by way of judicial review and not by way of an ordinary action, whether for a declaration or an injunction or otherwise. Otherwise it is contrary to public policy and an abuse of court process. - Lau Wong Fat v Attorney General [1997] HKLRD A15; (1997) 7 HKPLR 307 (CA).

3. There must be a case for judicial review – Pavisa enterprises v. Ag – (Attached)

4. Five tests must pass - John Mwombeki Byombalirwa v the Regional Commissioner And Regional Police Commander, Bukoba [1986] TLR 73 (HC)

5. There is an in ordinate delay considering the period of imitation to bring an application for leave to apply for prerogative orders is six months from the date of the decision – Mr. Hamis A. E. Mkora v The Chief Secretary Presidents office & Others Misc. Civil Application No. 38 Of 2003.- (attached)

6. The purpose of the requirement for leave is to operate as a screening process to eliminate at an early stage any application, which is frivolous, vexatious or hopeless, - pointed out by Lord Diplock in R. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex p. National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd. [1981] 2 All E R 93 at 105. – (attached). Again the purpose is to prevent the time of the court being wasted by busybodies with misguided or trivial complaints of administrative error, and to remove the uncertainty in which public officers and authorities might be left as to whether they could safely proceed with administrative action while proceedings for judicial review of it were actually pending even though misconceived. The requirement for leave also reflects the discretionary nature of judicial review; the decision of a public authority is reviewed at the discretion of the Court.

7. The application for leave is is accompanied by affidavit stating the facts of the case, the relief sought for by the applicant and the grounds on which the relief is sought. Chellum v. Commissioner of Police (1991) MR 7.

8. Leave would be granted if on the material then available the court thinks, without going into the matter in depth, that there is an arguable case for granting the relief claimed by the applicant. As pointed out in Luchmun v. Mauritius Sugar Terminal Corporation (1990) MR 343, the requirement for leave is to ensure the applicant is only allowed to proceed to a substantive hearing if the Court is satisfied that there is a case fit for further consideration.

9. The supporting affidavit must set out all the facts relied on, including any relevant evidence. Specific averments are necessary to disclose an arguable case that there is a serious flaw in the decision-making process or that the decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable body could have reached such a decision. It was held in Ramdenee v. Registrar General and Tax Appeal Tribunal (1997) SCJ 303

10. There is a duty on the applicant to make a full and frank disclosure. The applicant for leave must show uberrimae fidei [that is utmost good faith], and if leave is obtained on false statement or suppression of material facts in the affidavit, the Court may refuse an order on this ground alone - R v. Kensington Commissioners. (1917) 1 KB 486] See also Gopaul v. NTA (1991), Societe Louclem v. Minister of Finance (1993) SCJ 431.

11. The Court has power to extend time for applying for leave to move for judicial review, but only if it considers that there is "good reason" for doing so. The Court will consider whether an extension of time for applying for judicial review will be likely to cause substantial hardship or prejudice, not only to the instant parties, but to a wider public or may be detrimental to good administration - R. v. Stratford-On-Avon D.C ex parte Jackson (1985) 1 WLR 1319.

12. Whether an Order for a grant for leave to the respondents to apply for the orders of Certiorari and Prohibition is appealable. -An application for leave to apply for the orders merely ends in an interim or interlocutory decision.- -Application for Leave is the first distinct stage where leave of the court is sought so that a party can apply for the orders of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition. If leave is refused, that is the end of the matter and an aggrieved party may wish to appeal against such refusal. -If, however, the leave to apply for the orders is granted, then the applicant proceeds to the next stage. If a person is aggrieved by the order granting leave, he should as well be able to appeal against the order. - The orders sought after leave has been obtained may or may not be granted by the High Court. In either case, an aggrieved party may wish to appeal to the Court of Appeal. In terms of Section 17 of Law Reform (Fatal Accidents and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, Cap. 310 High Court no longer issues prerogative writs of mandamus, prohibition and certiorari- High 3 Court is vested with jurisdiction to issue the Orders of mandamus, prohibition and certiorari. Section 17 of Cap. 310 also provides for a right of appeal by an aggrieved party where an application for the orders is either granted or refused. It does not deal with applications for leave to apply for the orders. -That being the position, section 17 (5) cannot be cited as the authority for a right to appeal against the grant or refusal of leave to apply for the orders. The application for leave to apply for the orders of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition is not a 4 separate and distinct process from the application for judicial review but is a necessary step to an application for the orders. The purpose for this “step” is to give the court an indication that an applicant has “sufficient interest in applying for the orders”. - The AG v WILFRED ONYANGO MGANYI and Others. – (attached)

The question of leave to appeal does not arise in a criminal appeal- Although decision at the leave stage is appelable with leave under section 5 (1) (c) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1979, the same thing could not be said of this criminal appeal because there is no equivalent of subsection (1) (c) of section 5, which deals with civil appeals: The AG v WILFRED ONYANGO MGANYI and Others. – (attached)
 

Attachments

  • AG v Wilfred Onyango & Others CAT.pdf
    93.5 KB · Views: 136
  • cat writ certiorary.docx
    22.5 KB · Views: 360
  • certiorari, mndamus, proihibition, judicial review.docx
    24.8 KB · Views: 637
  • civil, an order of certiorari.doc
    38.5 KB · Views: 207
  • civil, an order of certiorari.doc
    38.5 KB · Views: 195
  • civil, citiorari.doc
    48.5 KB · Views: 404
  • leave to apply for prerogative order.doc
    53.5 KB · Views: 559
  • Mr hamis mkora.pdf
    431.2 KB · Views: 101
  • O-Reilly-v-Mackman-1983.pdf
    162.3 KB · Views: 102
  • Pavisa enterprises v AG.pdf
    371.5 KB · Views: 122
  • R. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners 2.pdf
    485.3 KB · Views: 514
Mkuu Dragoon, na wana jamvi kwa ujumla naomba kupewa urahisi wa kupata haya yafuatayo;

1. Authorities supporting leave of Judicial review

2. Authorities zinazo support kuwa "siting of irrelevant sections or bulk of sections in an application but if the right sections appears and are rightly sited then that act doesn't render an Application invalid.

Kuna case moja ya CITI BANK ( parties wengine nimewasahau) ina support argument hapo juu, ambae nayo naomba anisaidie na kama kuna cases nyingne naomba tafadhali.

Natanguliza shukurani.
Ndugu njiazote pakua hiki kitabu kitakusaidia kwenye issue za judicia remedies.
 

Attachments

  • COMPILATION OF CASES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.pdf
    2.3 MB · Views: 696
Mkuu Dragoon, na wana jamvi kwa ujumla naomba kupewa urahisi wa kupata haya yafuatayo;

1. Authorities supporting leave of Judicial review

2. Authorities zinazo support kuwa "siting of irrelevant sections or bulk of sections in an application but if the right sections appears and are rightly sited then that act doesn't render an Application invalid.

Kuna case moja ya CITI BANK ( parties wengine nimewasahau) ina support argument hapo juu, ambae nayo naomba anisaidie na kama kuna cases nyingne naomba tafadhali.

Natanguliza shukurani.
njiazote , kuhusu hitaji lako la pili hapa nimekuwekea kesi uliyoitaja ya CITIBANK v TTCL na kesi zingine. Pakua Uzisome mkuu.
 

Attachments

  • CITIBANK vs TTCL & OTHERS.pdf
    2.9 MB · Views: 245
  • FAILURE TO CITE THE ENABLING PROVISION.doc
    29.5 KB · Views: 257
  • non citation is not atechnicality but fatal..doc
    42 KB · Views: 115
  • non citation not technicality falling under article 107(2).doc
    43 KB · Views: 304
  • non citation of provision of law.docx
    23.4 KB · Views: 556
  • non citation.doc
    43 KB · Views: 244
  • wrong citation of laws.docx
    16.4 KB · Views: 503
  • WRONG ENABLING PROVISION, INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.doc
    38 KB · Views: 514
Mkuu Jaffary kesi uliyoniomba hii hapa
 

Attachments

  • CITIBANK vs TTCL & OTHERS.pdf
    2.9 MB · Views: 82
Mkuu njiazote , naomba nianze na ombi lako la kwanza, kwanza nikitoa maelezo kidogo na baada ya hapo nikiambatanisha case laws husika.

ELEMENTARY APPRAISAL OF THE NATURE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATIONS

1. Exclusive procedural rule that a person seeking relief against a public authority in relation to rights protected under public law must, as a general rule, proceed by way of an application for judicial review. Application for judicial review is a two stage process: a leave application followed by a substantive hearing - O'Reilly v Mackman [1983] 2 AC 237. –(attached)

2. It was held that where a person seeks to establish that the decision of a person or body infringes rights which are entitled to protection under public law, he must, as a general rule, proceed by way of judicial review and not by way of an ordinary action, whether for a declaration or an injunction or otherwise. Otherwise it is contrary to public policy and an abuse of court process. - Lau Wong Fat v Attorney General [1997] HKLRD A15; (1997) 7 HKPLR 307 (CA).

3. There must be a case for judicial review – Pavisa enterprises v. Ag – (Attached)

4. Five tests must pass - John Mwombeki Byombalirwa v the Regional Commissioner And Regional Police Commander, Bukoba [1986] TLR 73 (HC)

5. There is an in ordinate delay considering the period of imitation to bring an application for leave to apply for prerogative orders is six months from the date of the decision – Mr. Hamis A. E. Mkora v The Chief Secretary Presidents office & Others Misc. Civil Application No. 38 Of 2003.- (attached)

6. The purpose of the requirement for leave is to operate as a screening process to eliminate at an early stage any application, which is frivolous, vexatious or hopeless, - pointed out by Lord Diplock in R. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex p. National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd. [1981] 2 All E R 93 at 105. – (attached). Again the purpose is to prevent the time of the court being wasted by busybodies with misguided or trivial complaints of administrative error, and to remove the uncertainty in which public officers and authorities might be left as to whether they could safely proceed with administrative action while proceedings for judicial review of it were actually pending even though misconceived. The requirement for leave also reflects the discretionary nature of judicial review; the decision of a public authority is reviewed at the discretion of the Court.

7. The application for leave is is accompanied by affidavit stating the facts of the case, the relief sought for by the applicant and the grounds on which the relief is sought. Chellum v. Commissioner of Police (1991) MR 7.

8. Leave would be granted if on the material then available the court thinks, without going into the matter in depth, that there is an arguable case for granting the relief claimed by the applicant. As pointed out in Luchmun v. Mauritius Sugar Terminal Corporation (1990) MR 343, the requirement for leave is to ensure the applicant is only allowed to proceed to a substantive hearing if the Court is satisfied that there is a case fit for further consideration.

9. The supporting affidavit must set out all the facts relied on, including any relevant evidence. Specific averments are necessary to disclose an arguable case that there is a serious flaw in the decision-making process or that the decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable body could have reached such a decision. It was held in Ramdenee v. Registrar General and Tax Appeal Tribunal (1997) SCJ 303

10. There is a duty on the applicant to make a full and frank disclosure. The applicant for leave must show uberrimae fidei [that is utmost good faith], and if leave is obtained on false statement or suppression of material facts in the affidavit, the Court may refuse an order on this ground alone - R v. Kensington Commissioners. (1917) 1 KB 486] See also Gopaul v. NTA (1991), Societe Louclem v. Minister of Finance (1993) SCJ 431.

11. The Court has power to extend time for applying for leave to move for judicial review, but only if it considers that there is "good reason" for doing so. The Court will consider whether an extension of time for applying for judicial review will be likely to cause substantial hardship or prejudice, not only to the instant parties, but to a wider public or may be detrimental to good administration - R. v. Stratford-On-Avon D.C ex parte Jackson (1985) 1 WLR 1319.

12. Whether an Order for a grant for leave to the respondents to apply for the orders of Certiorari and Prohibition is appealable. -An application for leave to apply for the orders merely ends in an interim or interlocutory decision.- -Application for Leave is the first distinct stage where leave of the court is sought so that a party can apply for the orders of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition. If leave is refused, that is the end of the matter and an aggrieved party may wish to appeal against such refusal. -If, however, the leave to apply for the orders is granted, then the applicant proceeds to the next stage. If a person is aggrieved by the order granting leave, he should as well be able to appeal against the order. - The orders sought after leave has been obtained may or may not be granted by the High Court. In either case, an aggrieved party may wish to appeal to the Court of Appeal. In terms of Section 17 of Law Reform (Fatal Accidents and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, Cap. 310 High Court no longer issues prerogative writs of mandamus, prohibition and certiorari- High 3 Court is vested with jurisdiction to issue the Orders of mandamus, prohibition and certiorari. Section 17 of Cap. 310 also provides for a right of appeal by an aggrieved party where an application for the orders is either granted or refused. It does not deal with applications for leave to apply for the orders. -That being the position, section 17 (5) cannot be cited as the authority for a right to appeal against the grant or refusal of leave to apply for the orders. The application for leave to apply for the orders of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition is not a 4 separate and distinct process from the application for judicial review but is a necessary step to an application for the orders. The purpose for this “step” is to give the court an indication that an applicant has “sufficient interest in applying for the orders”. - The AG v WILFRED ONYANGO MGANYI and Others. – (attached)

The question of leave to appeal does not arise in a criminal appeal- Although decision at the leave stage is appelable with leave under section 5 (1) (c) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1979, the same thing could not be said of this criminal appeal because there is no equivalent of subsection (1) (c) of section 5, which deals with civil appeals: The AG v WILFRED ONYANGO MGANYI and Others. – (attached)

Msomi Dragoon, barikiwa sana
 
Back
Top Bottom