Mahakama Kuu vs Mahakama ya Rufani Tanzania!

[Buchanan]

Nimesikia mara kwa mara kwamba Mahakama Kuu hutoa Hukumu kulingana na Sheria (wana bold spirit) lakini Mahakama ya Rufani imekaa kisiasa zaidi (wana timid spirit na hawataki kabisa kufungua Pandora's Box) ili kulinda maslahi ya Serikali. Ndio kusema kwamba hiyo ni sehemu ya kupumulia ya Serikali!

1. Katika kesi ya REPUBLIC v MBUSHUU alias DOMINIC MNYAROJE AND KALAI SANGULA [1994] TLR 146 (HC) Mahakama Kuu ilitamka kama ifuatavyo kuhusu uhalali wa ADHABU YA KIFO:

"Death penalty offends the right to the dignity of a person in the way the sentence is executed and therefore it offends article 13(6)(d) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania."

Lakini Mahakama ya Rufani ilipinga uamuzi huo katika kesi ya MBUSHUU alias DOMINIC MNYAROJE AND ANOTHER v REPUBLIC [1995] TLR 97 (CA) kwa kusema yafuatayo:

"Though the death penalty as provided by s 197 of the Penal Code, Cap 16, offends art 13(6)(d) and (e) of the Constitution, it is not arbitrary, hence a lawful law and it is reasonably necessary and it is thus saved by art 30(2) of the Constitution; the death penalty is, therefore, not unconstitutional."

ANGALIZO: OFFENDS ARTICLE 13(6)(d) and (e) = NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

2. Tumeshuhudia jana kuhusu Mgombea Binafsi Mahakama Kuu ikitoa haki ya kugombea binafsi bila kupitia Chama lakini Mhakama ya Rufani imedai eti kwamba suala hilo SI LA KISHERIA bali NI LA KISIASA!

Jamani haya mambo ni kweli au ni just coincidences na ni isolated events! Tujadili!

 

[Ngambo Ngali]

kumbuka pia kesi ya AG versus Butambala:"By way of post-script we desire to add that the fees payable under s 4 of the Legal Aid (Criminal Proceedings) Act 21 of 1969 may be grossly inadequate and out of date. We think something positive must be done..."

 

[ngoshwe]

Tazama hii ambayo hakukuwa na mtazamo wa Kisiasa japo kwa upande mmoja au mwingine ingeweza kuwa hivyo.

Ndyanabo v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 64 of 2001) [2002] TZCA 2 (14 February 2002)

An appeal from a decision of the High Court dismissing a petition filed by the appellant for a declaration that Section 111(2), (3) and (4) of the Elections Act, 1985 as unconstitutional for being violative of Article 13(1), (2) and 6(a) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania in relation to access to justice.

Facts:

In the general election held in this country in October 2000 the appellant, an advocate by profession, entered into a contest for the parliamentary seat in Nkenge Constituency. According to the results of the contest announced by the Returning Officer, the appellant lost the election. He was aggrieved by those results. As he was entitled under section 111(1) of the Act, he filed an election petition before the High Court, questioning the validity of the declared victory of one of his opponents in the election. The Registrar of the Court has not, in compliance with the provisions of Section 111(2) of the Act, fixed a date for the hearing of the petition. The subsection, as amended by the Electoral Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 2001, reads:

"(2) The Registrar shall not fix a date for the hearing of any election petition unless the petitioner has paid into the court, as security for costs, a sum of five million shillings in respect of the proposed election petition"

Held:

(i) In our view, the statutory provision is a class legislation. It is also arbitrary and the limitation it purports to impose on the fundamental right of access to justice is more than is reasonably necessary to achieve the objective of preventing abuse of the judicial process. Plainly, Parliament exceeded its powers by enacting the unconstitutional provision. Legislative competence is limited to making laws which are consistent with the Constitution. These conclusions are sufficient to dispose of the appeal, but we consider it useful to say a word or two on the arguments addressed to us concerning the exemption granted to the Attorney General by Section 111(3) of the Act.


(ii) The importance of the role of the Attorney general in his capacity as the guardian of public interest cannot, in our opinion, be over-emphasized. But the problem arising from Section 111 of the Act is not that the statutory provision purports to exempt the Law Officer from giving security for costs, but, by repealing Rule 11(3) of the Rules, that it purports to deprive a petitioner of his right, under the sub-rule, to apply for an exemption.

(iii) As far as legislative discrimination is concerned, what is decisive is not the phraseology of the statute but the effect of the legislation. However, since we have held that subsection (2) of the Section is unconstitutional, it follows, as day follows night, that Rule 11(3) is still in force, and, therefore, a petitioner still has a right to apply for an exemption. In practical terms, therefore, an ordinary petitioner cannot be said to be subjected to discrimination by Section 111(3) of the Act. In the circumstances, we agree with Kyando and Ihema, JJ, though for different reasons, that the subsection is not violative of the provisions of Article 13(2) of the Constitution. For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion, this appeal must succeed. Allowing the same with costs, we reverse the decision of the High Court and declare that Section 111(2) of the Elections Act, 1985, is unconstitutional and, therefore, devoid of any legal force ab initio, that is to say, from the date of its enactment.

[SIZE=+0](iv) For the avoidance of doubt, it must be distinctly stated that, since the subsection has been so declared, the provisions of Rule 11(3) of the Elections (Elections Petitions) Rules, 1971, as amended, are still in force and, therefore, the powers conferred upon the High Court by those provisions may, in appropriate cases, be invoked by the Court in favour of petitioners. One of the results of Section 111(2) being struck down for being unconstitutional is that the sum of money which a petitioner is required to pay as security for costs in a parliamentary election petition is still five hundred shillings. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=+0]

[/SIZE]




[SIZE=+0]


[/SIZE]

 

[Buchanan]

kumbuka pia kesi ya AG versus Butambala:"By way of post-script we desire to add that the fees payable under s 4 of the Legal Aid (Criminal Proceedings) Act 21 of 1969 may be grossly inadequate and out of date. We think something positive must be done..."

Hapa Mahakama iliona kuwa Sheria ni nzuri kwa maneno yafuatayo: "The effect of this is that s 4 of Act 21 of 1969 is still good law and in the books. It follows that the range of fees provided therein is still the legal one therefore the payment of Shs 10,000/= ordered to be paid to Mr Butambala are illegal and must be refunded, less the amounts to be assessed afresh by Mwalusanya J in accordance with the existing law."

Lakini cha kushangaza tena ikasema kwamba: "By way of post-script we desire to add that the fees payable under s 4 of the Legal Aid (Criminal Proceedings) Act 21 of 1969 may be grossly inadequate and out of date. We think something positive must be done, unless the public philosophy is that the service advocates render under the law are intended to be akin to the classical dock briefs of some jurisdictions."

Kaaazi kweli kweli!

 

[Buchanan]

Tazama hii ambayo hakukuwa na mtazamo wa Kisiasa japo kwa upande mmoja au mwingine ingeweza kuwa hivyo.

[SIZE=+0]

[/SIZE]




[SIZE=+0]


[/SIZE]

Samahani tuelimishane, hapa siasa iliingiaje kwenye uamuzi huu?

 

[Buchanan]

Naona learned bros and sisters hamuonekani kwenye mada hii kwa sana!

 

[Babuyao]

Hizi mahakama mi naona zinaoneshana UBABE, hasa hii ya rufaa naona daima inakataa maamuzi ya mahakama kuu. Hii ya rufaa ina matatizo hii! Kabisa wajameni. Daima inakataa kile kichoamuliwa na mwenzake. je, mahakama kuu daima inakosea tu? Mi naona kuna ile hali ya kusema "We bwana mdogo nini wewe, unajua nini"! Umekosea, si hivyo, ni hivi". Aibu yao mahakama ya rufaa.

 

[Sikonge]

Wana sheria, si kuwa hatuonekani. Wengine sisi ni Wabeba Zege tangu tukiwa Secondary School O Level.

Hizo sheria zenu na namba namba zinatutowa nje kabisa. Ingelikuwa vema mkiandika basi andikeni kwa ufupi tu na mengine jaribuni kutafasiri kwa lugha ya kibinadamu. Ni sawa na sisi tuanze kuandika lugha za kiufundi na kumwaga vialama na namba namba tu vya ajabu ajabu vya kwenye taa za kuongoza magari barabarani au ndege kiwanja cha ndege. Tukiona namba zimezidi bila maneno, tunauchuna.

 

[Msanii]

Unafiki wa majaji kudhani sisi ni wajinga sana.
Executives wanashika hatamu mpaka kwenye vichwa vya majaji wa mahakama ya rufaa.....

 

[Chapakazi]

Nimesikia mara kwa mara kwamba Mahakama Kuu hutoa Hukumu kulingana na Sheria (wana bold spirit) lakini Mahakama ya Rufani imekaa kisiasa zaidi (wana timid spirit na hawataki kabisa kufungua Pandora's Box) ili kulinda maslahi ya Serikali. Ndio kusema kwamba hiyo ni sehemu ya kupumulia ya Serikali!

1. Katika kesi ya REPUBLIC v MBUSHUU alias DOMINIC MNYAROJE AND KALAI SANGULA [1994] TLR 146 (HC) Mahakama Kuu ilitamka kama ifuatavyo kuhusu uhalali wa ADHABU YA KIFO:

"Death penalty offends the right to the dignity of a person in the way the sentence is executed and therefore it offends article 13(6)(d) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania."

Lakini Mahakama ya Rufani ilipinga uamuzi huo katika kesi ya MBUSHUU alias DOMINIC MNYAROJE AND ANOTHER v REPUBLIC [1995] TLR 97 (CA) kwa kusema yafuatayo:

"Though the death penalty as provided by s 197 of the Penal Code, Cap 16, offends art 13(6)(d) and (e) of the Constitution, it is not arbitrary, hence a lawful law and it is reasonably necessary and it is thus saved by art 30(2) of the Constitution; the death penalty is, therefore, not unconstitutional."

ANGALIZO: OFFENDS ARTICLE 13(6)(d) and (e) = NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

2. Tumeshuhudia jana kuhusu Mgombea Binafsi Mahakama Kuu ikitoa haki ya kugombea binafsi bila kupitia Chama lakini Mhakama ya Rufani imedai eti kwamba suala hilo SI LA KISHERIA bali NI LA KISIASA!

Jamani haya mambo ni kweli au ni just coincidences na ni isolated events! Tujadili!

Nadhani hapo key word ni "arbitrary"! I wld interpret it to mean...although in a literal interpretation it appears to offend art 13 (d) & (e), but in infact it does not do so because of art 30(2)...which allows the breach of the given rights in certain specified circumstances. Sasa cha kushangaza hapa ni nini? Hujaelewa nini hapa? Sioni politics hata kidogo! Its a simple case of statutory interpretation which i think the Court of Appeal was right!

Art 30 (2) reads:
(2) Ifahamike kwamba masharti yaliyomo katika Sehemu hii
ya Katiba hii, yanayofafanua misingi ya haki, uhuru na wajibu wa
binadamu, hayaharamishi sheria yoyote iliyotungwa wala kuzuia
sheria yoyote kutungwa au jambo lolote halali kufanywa kwa
mujibu wa sheria hiyo, kwa ajili ya -
(a) kuhakikisha kwamba haki na uhuru wa watu wengine
au maslahi ya umma haviathiriwi na matumizi
mabaya ya uhuru na haki za watu binafsi;
(b) kuhakikisha ulinzi, usalama wa jamii, amani katika
jamii, maadili ya jamii, afya ya jamii, mipango ya
maendeleo ya miji na vijiji, ukuzaji na matumizi ya
madini au ukuzaji na uendelezaji wa mali au maslahi
mengineyo yoyote kwa nia ya kukuza manufaa ya
umma;
(c) kuhakikisha utekelezaji wa hukumu au amri ya
mahakama iliyotolewa katika shauri lolote la madai
au la jinai;
(d) kulinda sifa, haki na uhuru wa watu wengine au
maisha binafsi ya watu wanaohusika katika mashauri
mahakamani, kuzuia kutoa habari za siri; kutunza
heshima, mamlaka na uhuru wa mahakama;
(e) kuweka vizuizi, kusimamia na kudhibiti uanzishaji,
uendeshaji na shughuli za vyama na mashirika ya
watu binafsi nchini; au
(f) kuwezesha jambo jingine lolote kufanyika ambalo
linastawisha au kuhifadhi maslahi ya taifa kwa jumla.

 

[Buchanan]

Wana sheria, si kuwa hatuonekani. Wengine sisi ni Wabeba Zege tangu tukiwa Secondary School O Level.

Hizo sheria zenu na namba namba zinatutowa nje kabisa. Ingelikuwa vema mkiandika basi andikeni kwa ufupi tu na mengine jaribuni kutafasiri kwa lugha ya kibinadamu. Ni sawa na sisi tuanze kuandika lugha za kiufundi na kumwaga vialama na namba namba tu vya ajabu ajabu vya kwenye taa za kuongoza magari barabarani au ndege kiwanja cha ndege. Tukiona namba zimezidi bila maneno, tunauchuna.

Unamaanisha nini "lugha ya binadamu?"

 

[lord atkin]

Je Jebra Kambole atafanikiwa?

 

[Stanley Mitchell II]

Tazama hii ambayo hakukuwa na mtazamo wa Kisiasa japo kwa upande mmoja au mwingine ingeweza kuwa hivyo.

[SIZE=+0]

[/SIZE]




[SIZE=+0]


[/SIZE]

Samatta, then CJ alionesha uwezo wake hapo kwenye iyo case.

Je tunao majaji type ya Samatta???