HOJA ZA MAPINGAMIZI YA SERIKALI YA MUUNGANO NA SERIKALI YA MAPINDUZI ZANZIBAR KUHUSU KESI YA BANDARI YATUPITILIWA MBALI, KESI YA MSINGI YA KIKATIBA SASA KUPANGIWA TAREHE YA KUANZA KUSIKILIZWA
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D5ZLtOJJ-nE
Ndugu Odero Charles Odero amechukua hatua ya kuipeleka sheria ya mwaka 1997 ya kuwa bandari za Zanzibar / Zanzibar Ports Corporation Act siyo la muungano kuwa ni batili kwa kuwa bandari hizo za Zanzibar zisiguswe kama suala la muungano ni batili. Na kushangaa mwanasheria mkuu wa serikali kukaa kimya juu ya sheria hiyo batili ya mwaka 1997 ya uanzishwaji mamlaka ya bandari ya Zanzibar.
Ndugu Odero Charles Odero ameamua kufungua kesi hiyo kufuatia bandari za Zanzibar kutotiwa ktk mkataba wa DP World wakati masuala ya bandari ni ya muungano, hivyo ..
Kutokana na hilo Mahakama Kuu Masijala kuu ya Dar es Salaam imeona ndugu Odero kwa niaba ya umma ana hoja ya msingi na halali kufungua kesi hiyo ya kikatiba, na Mahakama Kuu kutupilia mbali mapingamizi ya Mwanasheria Mkuu wa Serikali ya Muungano na ya Mwanasheria Mkuu wa Serikali ya Mapinduzi Zanzibar SMZ dhidi ya kesi hiyo ya kikatiba kuhusu bandari iliyoletwa kwa niaba ya umma na ndugu Odero...
Ndugu Odero kwa niaba ya umma anataka bandari zote za Tanzania bara na Zanzibar zitamkwe zipo chini ya Jamhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania kama ambavyo masuala ya Muungano katika katiba ya Jamhuri ya Muungano inavyotamka kuwa bandari ni suala lililochini ya mamlaka ya Muungano ....
Sasa kufuatia hukumu hiyo ndogo ya kusikiliza mapingamizi yaliyotupwa na Mahakama Kuu, kesi ya msingi ya kikatiba itapangiwa tarehe ya kuanza kusikilizwa ...
HUKUMU YA KURASA 39 ILIYOMPA USHINDI WA AWALI RAIA ANAYESIMAMA KWA NIABA YA UMMA :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA
(MAIN REGISTRY)
AT PAR ES SALAAM
MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL CAUSE NO. 15 OF 2023
ODERO CHARLES ODERO.........................................PETITIONER
VERSUS
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TANZANIA................... RESPONDENT
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ZANZIBAR...............NECESSARY PARTY
RULING
13th December 2023 & 4th March, 2024
KAGOMBA, J.
This is a ruling on two sets of preliminary objections raised by the respondent and the necessary party herein, against a petition filed in this court by the petitioner to challenge the constitutionality of the operation of sea ports in Zanzibar by a non-union entity. The petitioner herein is
aggrieved to notice that the management of seaports located within Tanzania Zanzibar is not placed in the exclusive domain and mandate of the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania through the Tanzania Ports Authority ('TPA') as per dictates of the Constitution of the United
Republic of Tanzania, 1977 [Cap 2] as amended (Hereinafter referred to
Page 1
as "the Constitution). Assuming his civic role as a public-spirited individual,
the petitioner prays for judgment and decree, as follows:
1. An order proclaiming that all sea ports established within Tanzania Zanzibar fall within the exclusive mandate of the Government of
United Republic of Tanzania;
2. An order proclaiming that the TPA is the proper union entity to
manage all established courts within Tanzania Zanzibar, including
those specified under the First Schedule to the Zanzibar Port
Corporation Act, 1997;
3. An order proclaiming that the enactment of Zanzibar Port
Corporation Act, 1997 contravened article 64(3), 64(4) and 64(5) of
the Constitution,
4. An order proclaiming that under the provision of article 64(5) of the
Constitution, the Zanzibar Port Act, 1997 is invalid.
5. Orders directing the respondent to institute urgent and necessary legal measures to immediately take over the operation of all seaports within Tanzania Zanzibar and vest them under the management and control of the United Republic of Tanzania through TPA and or any other designated entity.
Page 2
......
submitting on this point, both sides acknowledged the need for the Attorney General of Zanzibar to stand on behalf of the Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar for a fair adjudication of the petition. Under such circumstances, this fourth issue is rather academic.
However, to give this sub-issue the consideration it deserves, I have thoroughly read the imports of section 6 of the Government Proceedings Act No. 3 of 2010, section 56 of the Zanzibar Constitution and section 14(1) (b) of the Attorney General's Chambers' (Discharge of Duties) Act, No. 6 of 2013, all enacted by the House of Representatives. Generally, I fully subscribe to the position that, in effect, these provisions require the Attorney General of Zanzibar to be sued in his own name in all civil proceedings filed against the Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar, among other things. This observation does not by itself warrant the court to find the petition bad in law for having the Attorney General Zanzibar joined as a necessary party. I shall deliberate more on this point in due course. As for now I think the concern should be on whether or not substantive justice has been rendered.
It is a fact that the Attorney General of Zanzibar was graciously granted leave of this court to file a counter affidavit and statement in reply, which he jointly did with the respondent herein. The idea here
Page 37
to grant him opportunity to be heard knowing it was necessary to do so.
This opportunity being fully taken, it cannot be said that the said Attorney
General was prejudiced in any way by being joined as a necessary party.
We may look at this issue in another perspective. There is no
gainsaying that the thrust of the petitioner's claim is that the Constitution
has been perverted. It is the Constitution of the United Republic of
Tanzania that is alleged to have been transgressed. This being the case,
one could argue that, it would suffice, for the petitioner to proceed against
the Attorney General (the respondent herein) alone, without joining the
necessary party, a practice which is not uncommon (See for example the
case of Mtumwa Said Haji and 49 Others v. the Attorney General
of the United Republic of Tanzania (supra). Such an argument may
find support under article 59(3) and (4) of the Constitution, which state:
"(3) Mwanasheria Mkuu atakuwa ndiye mshauri wa
Seri kali ya Jamhuri ya Muungano juu ya mam bo ya sheria
na, kwa ajili hiyo, atawajibika kutoa ushauri kwa Seri kali ya
Jamhuri ya Muungano kuhusu mambo yote ya kisheria, na
kutekeleza shughuli nyinginezo zozote zenye asili ya au kuhusiana
na sheria zitakazopelekwa kwake au atakazoagizwa na Rais
kuziteketeza, na pia kutekeleza kazi au shughuii nyinginezo
ziiizokabidhiwa kwake na Katiba hii au na sheria yoyote.
(4) Katika kutekeleza kazi na shughuli zake kwa mujibu wa
ibara hii, Mwanasheria Mkuu atakuwa na haki ya
Page 38
kuhudhuria na kusikilizwa katika Mahakama zote katika
Jamhuri ya Muungano. "[Emphasis added].
It could further be argued that despite the fact that the petition
impugns the ZPC Act, which is a statute of the House of Representatives, the respondent could deploy internal government communication systems to obtain all the necessary details and answers to the questions raised in the petition. The petitioner herein didn't see it that way. He thought it was necessary to implead the Attorney General of Zanzibar as a necessary party, a line of thinking I find meritorious.
Therefore, in line with the submission by the petitioner's counsel, I hold the view that it was necessary for the voice of Zanzibar to be heard so as to enrich the proceedings and eventually have an effective decree, because the impugned Act was enacted in Zanzibar. Thus, having considered the Attorney General of Zanzibar a necessary party and having granted him full audience, I find no merit in this ground of objection too.
In final analysis, all the preliminary objections raised herein are devoid of merits. The same are accordingly dismissed.
Dated at Dar es Salaam this 4th day of March, 2024.
JUDGE
Page 39
SOMA ZAIDI / READ MORE. Source:
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D5ZLtOJJ-nE
Ndugu Odero Charles Odero amechukua hatua ya kuipeleka sheria ya mwaka 1997 ya kuwa bandari za Zanzibar / Zanzibar Ports Corporation Act siyo la muungano kuwa ni batili kwa kuwa bandari hizo za Zanzibar zisiguswe kama suala la muungano ni batili. Na kushangaa mwanasheria mkuu wa serikali kukaa kimya juu ya sheria hiyo batili ya mwaka 1997 ya uanzishwaji mamlaka ya bandari ya Zanzibar.
Ndugu Odero Charles Odero ameamua kufungua kesi hiyo kufuatia bandari za Zanzibar kutotiwa ktk mkataba wa DP World wakati masuala ya bandari ni ya muungano, hivyo ..
Kutokana na hilo Mahakama Kuu Masijala kuu ya Dar es Salaam imeona ndugu Odero kwa niaba ya umma ana hoja ya msingi na halali kufungua kesi hiyo ya kikatiba, na Mahakama Kuu kutupilia mbali mapingamizi ya Mwanasheria Mkuu wa Serikali ya Muungano na ya Mwanasheria Mkuu wa Serikali ya Mapinduzi Zanzibar SMZ dhidi ya kesi hiyo ya kikatiba kuhusu bandari iliyoletwa kwa niaba ya umma na ndugu Odero...
Ndugu Odero kwa niaba ya umma anataka bandari zote za Tanzania bara na Zanzibar zitamkwe zipo chini ya Jamhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania kama ambavyo masuala ya Muungano katika katiba ya Jamhuri ya Muungano inavyotamka kuwa bandari ni suala lililochini ya mamlaka ya Muungano ....
Sasa kufuatia hukumu hiyo ndogo ya kusikiliza mapingamizi yaliyotupwa na Mahakama Kuu, kesi ya msingi ya kikatiba itapangiwa tarehe ya kuanza kusikilizwa ...
HUKUMU YA KURASA 39 ILIYOMPA USHINDI WA AWALI RAIA ANAYESIMAMA KWA NIABA YA UMMA :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA
(MAIN REGISTRY)
AT PAR ES SALAAM
MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL CAUSE NO. 15 OF 2023
ODERO CHARLES ODERO.........................................PETITIONER
VERSUS
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TANZANIA................... RESPONDENT
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ZANZIBAR...............NECESSARY PARTY
RULING
13th December 2023 & 4th March, 2024
KAGOMBA, J.
This is a ruling on two sets of preliminary objections raised by the respondent and the necessary party herein, against a petition filed in this court by the petitioner to challenge the constitutionality of the operation of sea ports in Zanzibar by a non-union entity. The petitioner herein is
aggrieved to notice that the management of seaports located within Tanzania Zanzibar is not placed in the exclusive domain and mandate of the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania through the Tanzania Ports Authority ('TPA') as per dictates of the Constitution of the United
Republic of Tanzania, 1977 [Cap 2] as amended (Hereinafter referred to
Page 1
as "the Constitution). Assuming his civic role as a public-spirited individual,
the petitioner prays for judgment and decree, as follows:
1. An order proclaiming that all sea ports established within Tanzania Zanzibar fall within the exclusive mandate of the Government of
United Republic of Tanzania;
2. An order proclaiming that the TPA is the proper union entity to
manage all established courts within Tanzania Zanzibar, including
those specified under the First Schedule to the Zanzibar Port
Corporation Act, 1997;
3. An order proclaiming that the enactment of Zanzibar Port
Corporation Act, 1997 contravened article 64(3), 64(4) and 64(5) of
the Constitution,
4. An order proclaiming that under the provision of article 64(5) of the
Constitution, the Zanzibar Port Act, 1997 is invalid.
5. Orders directing the respondent to institute urgent and necessary legal measures to immediately take over the operation of all seaports within Tanzania Zanzibar and vest them under the management and control of the United Republic of Tanzania through TPA and or any other designated entity.
Page 2
......
submitting on this point, both sides acknowledged the need for the Attorney General of Zanzibar to stand on behalf of the Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar for a fair adjudication of the petition. Under such circumstances, this fourth issue is rather academic.
However, to give this sub-issue the consideration it deserves, I have thoroughly read the imports of section 6 of the Government Proceedings Act No. 3 of 2010, section 56 of the Zanzibar Constitution and section 14(1) (b) of the Attorney General's Chambers' (Discharge of Duties) Act, No. 6 of 2013, all enacted by the House of Representatives. Generally, I fully subscribe to the position that, in effect, these provisions require the Attorney General of Zanzibar to be sued in his own name in all civil proceedings filed against the Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar, among other things. This observation does not by itself warrant the court to find the petition bad in law for having the Attorney General Zanzibar joined as a necessary party. I shall deliberate more on this point in due course. As for now I think the concern should be on whether or not substantive justice has been rendered.
It is a fact that the Attorney General of Zanzibar was graciously granted leave of this court to file a counter affidavit and statement in reply, which he jointly did with the respondent herein. The idea here
Page 37
to grant him opportunity to be heard knowing it was necessary to do so.
This opportunity being fully taken, it cannot be said that the said Attorney
General was prejudiced in any way by being joined as a necessary party.
We may look at this issue in another perspective. There is no
gainsaying that the thrust of the petitioner's claim is that the Constitution
has been perverted. It is the Constitution of the United Republic of
Tanzania that is alleged to have been transgressed. This being the case,
one could argue that, it would suffice, for the petitioner to proceed against
the Attorney General (the respondent herein) alone, without joining the
necessary party, a practice which is not uncommon (See for example the
case of Mtumwa Said Haji and 49 Others v. the Attorney General
of the United Republic of Tanzania (supra). Such an argument may
find support under article 59(3) and (4) of the Constitution, which state:
"(3) Mwanasheria Mkuu atakuwa ndiye mshauri wa
Seri kali ya Jamhuri ya Muungano juu ya mam bo ya sheria
na, kwa ajili hiyo, atawajibika kutoa ushauri kwa Seri kali ya
Jamhuri ya Muungano kuhusu mambo yote ya kisheria, na
kutekeleza shughuli nyinginezo zozote zenye asili ya au kuhusiana
na sheria zitakazopelekwa kwake au atakazoagizwa na Rais
kuziteketeza, na pia kutekeleza kazi au shughuii nyinginezo
ziiizokabidhiwa kwake na Katiba hii au na sheria yoyote.
(4) Katika kutekeleza kazi na shughuli zake kwa mujibu wa
ibara hii, Mwanasheria Mkuu atakuwa na haki ya
Page 38
kuhudhuria na kusikilizwa katika Mahakama zote katika
Jamhuri ya Muungano. "[Emphasis added].
It could further be argued that despite the fact that the petition
impugns the ZPC Act, which is a statute of the House of Representatives, the respondent could deploy internal government communication systems to obtain all the necessary details and answers to the questions raised in the petition. The petitioner herein didn't see it that way. He thought it was necessary to implead the Attorney General of Zanzibar as a necessary party, a line of thinking I find meritorious.
Therefore, in line with the submission by the petitioner's counsel, I hold the view that it was necessary for the voice of Zanzibar to be heard so as to enrich the proceedings and eventually have an effective decree, because the impugned Act was enacted in Zanzibar. Thus, having considered the Attorney General of Zanzibar a necessary party and having granted him full audience, I find no merit in this ground of objection too.
In final analysis, all the preliminary objections raised herein are devoid of merits. The same are accordingly dismissed.
Dated at Dar es Salaam this 4th day of March, 2024.
JUDGE
Page 39
SOMA ZAIDI / READ MORE. Source:
