onesmo olengurumwa vs attorney general 2022 tzhc 17011 15 february 2022

onesmo olengurumwa vs attorney general 2022 tzhc 17011 15 february 2022

The court held that Sections 4(2), 4(3), 4(4), and 4(5) of BRADEA as amended are constitutional. The provisions are procedural, intended to filter frivolous petitions, ensure bona fide claims, and do not violate the Constitution. The requirement for affidavits, exhaustion of remedies, and suing the Attorney General instead of heads of state organs are justified, non-discriminatory, and consistent with the Constitution and international standards. The petitioner failed to prove unconstitutionality beyond reasonable doubt.

Citation
onesmo olengurumwa vs attorney general 2022 tzhc 17011 15 february 2022
Parties
Petitioner: Onesmo Olengurumwa; Respondent: Attorney General
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
15 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Cause (constitutional Petition) / Judgment
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Constitutionality of Statutes, Access to Justice, Locus Standi, Exhaustion of Remedies, Equality Before the Law, Separation of Powers
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Constitutionality of Statutes Access to Justice Locus Standi Exhaustion of Remedies Equality Before the Law +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 34 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Onesmo Olengurumwa

Petitioner

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Civil Cause (constitutional Petition) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Sections 4(2), 4(3), 4(4), and 4(5) of the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act (BRADEA) as amended are unconstitutional for violating Articles 13(2), 13(4), 13(6)(a), 26(1), 26(2), and 30(3) of the Constitution of Tanzania.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Sections 4(2), 4(3), 4(4), and 4(5) of BRADEA as amended are constitutional. The provisions are procedural, intended to filter frivolous petitions, ensure bona fide claims, and do not violate the Constitution. The requirement for affidavits, exhaustion of remedies, and suing the Attorney General instead of heads of state organs are justified, non-discriminatory, and consistent with the Constitution and international standards. The petitioner failed to prove unconstitutionality beyond reasonable doubt.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • No costs awarded
  • Right of appeal explained