19880106 TZCA Dar es Salaam

J • I1T TEJ cou:lT OF APP3AL 01:' Ti.:LAlITA AT ;~_.}JJZITul.I~ -··----- CiVIL 1,2}'2:JAL rm. 47/ 87 SHA.LL snN s:rn:;:;.Ts cum-.~ ••• o"" < •• o . . . . . . . . . o • • • • • 1-J'P:JLL.'uJT v.:r,:sus l ilSiillJJIIT SPOi1TS CLU]),, 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 " 0 C •· 0 0 0 0 c, 0 0 (I (l <J C O O ,: 0 '- C u O TCJSPOlITJ.Dlfl' -------- ...... ____ JUDCE~SNT OJ.: 1•1~ COTLT__ 1 1 ..._ This evo11tf1.!l appeal is a1Jon·t football. Public intei·ost in rf ~"'----i it 1i!l,s co11spicuo1..1.s~r cvidcl'lt e.r1d tl10 v:i:c,;ency 1Ti th uhicli. tho appeal had to be disposed of ua.s impressed upon us in court. It was hoard dttring the cou:ct vacc:.tion and lThen two meub0ra oi tho cotu•t uorc on thoi:c arn11..1..a.l leave. Tho paxtios arc tuo spol'ts Clubs in ianzibar. f'o:r facHi ty of b:rcvi ty· they ·(•Till he:roinci.fter be i 0fc:rrec! to simpiy 0 as Smull Simba and Miombcni, respectively. During the 19l37 Loagu0 Football sen.!3011 in Zanzibar faey wore matched aca.inst oach other twice, in accordance with the :rul0s. The first match ,- ) was won by Hiembeni and this was on 11th A11ril 1987. 011 23rd Jtme 1987 when tho +.1-10 teams clas:1ed a[sain tho ta.1)les were turned. Small Simba won that match and l•Iic;,1boni filed a complaint with the Zanzibar Foottall Association, hcrciri..,J,ftcr 1·eforred to as Z.F.A., the body char[sod with tho duty of superintending the aa,me of :footh.1.ll in Zanzibar. Among other things~ Miembeni alleged that Suiall Simba. had illc{,all;r fielded a player called SILW..AfT 11:iUSSA ul1om they had acquired from Simba Football Club in Dai' cs Salaam 1-ri thout com11lyi:ng with ti.10 necessary transfer ' . formalities obtaininc in Zanzibar. ZFA fom'ld substance in the · allegation und the:cefore declared Micmbeni the uinnors of that eocoo,/2 ... •, 2 controverted matcho In ti..u-11 Small Simba, beinc di satisfied with that docision 9 a]_)pcalod to the Zanziba::.: 3:ports .Colmcil, also known as furaza la !-,Iichezo Zanzi1ar 9 or :mlZ for short, created b;y the Zanzibar Sports Council Act, Act Jfo 8 of 1983. JJNZ 1·0vci,sed the decisj_on wade by ZFA and declared Small Siniba, who llad 11011 the match on the field, the wir..ne:es of that game. Tho p:ccscnt appeal bGfo:;_,o us is hy Small Siml.la, now f1•om the decision of tJ10 ITieh Cou:rt of Zanzi l)ar, whc1·oin Rarnadhani CJ 5 on appeal by I,Iieubeni, g_m1.shed the decision by Di1Z 9 maldl"lf;' a nuJilbor of findings, one· of them beinc that at the material time wi1en tl10 m;z decision was. pt.U"j_)ortcdly made, the said JJH.Z was j_ tsolf non-existent. This Beems to us the c1~uX of the mc:. t toI' o Befo:re us Sr.1all Si.ii·:ba were represented by liro MaiJ.~a, learned advocate, while llicmbcni wc:r-c advocated for 1)y Nr. 1.Iuccadar.i, learned Counsel. Both learned advocates fervently and strenuously arQ.J.ed the appeo.1 and we o..re thankful to them for their useful assistance. We wisl, also to j_)lacc on ~cecord 01.1.1.· g:mtefv.l thanks to both Counsel for pu.tting at our disposal the '-.1 various docrn;1ents tl1ey decr:Jcd useful for ou:r co11sicl.cration. I I Nr. tlaira :for the appellants ac3-vancccl five e,·rou.."'lcls Ucflinst tho lc&rhed Cl1:!.c:f Justice• s cleci.sion ,:!.nd these may be g.coupod into threeg- 1. That the matter was not properly boi'o:cc tho IIigh Cotu•t for ad.j'c.dication as it uas not preceedcd by cei~tain :fo:cn1ali tics of procedm·oo :fo incidentally notQJ,101·0, 1-1:i.th satisfaction 1 thct lcarmd Co1.mo0l did not i:n,'!I'sue the stand adopted by D.f.iZ in the IIigh Coui·t that in any event tho ITi 0 h Com·t was dev-oid of l)OWer to hear the mattex· because it was provided that mlZ decisions are final. The learned Chief Justice corr0ctly co11stJ.."'L1ed ncculation 17 of cm 155 of 1985 to moan tho.. t such decisions can only be final w:i. thin certain limits e.nd lira:i.tat:i.ons, beyond wl1ich tho ITie;h Court's powo:c to enquire into m,ch decisions is not ousted. \ 3 2. That th0 learned Chief Justice applied ina~prop:ciato Football Itegulations· and uas m'o:ng to s~stai11 tho ZF.A docision 9 and 3. That tho learned Chief Justice sl1ould have directed that the matter 1Jo hoard by a properly - consti tutod DI1Z. For the pu.ryose of detcrmini11&,· this appeal we think thore uas a 0 ood deal of chaff from irhich we 1,1unt sepo.rate the g:;:ain. Tho two really 1°olovant and ir:1:po1~-cri.nt issues we have to conoidcr and decide upon are ub.other tho matter was properly before the Hit5·h Com~t, in terms of procedure that- is, as o,lroo.dy indicated~ and secondly, whether or not we can sEstain tho ioarnod Chief Justice's holdinc that 11 IliVJ"O rtlnal•,:t,~ualiana kal)isa na uamuzi wa H!..LIKUWA LA IL:",..LALI. 11 (Capital L0 ttors employed for tho sake ...; of emphasis). Hr. Nucca<J.arn u:cged that the procedure adopted to roach tho Tiigh Cow:t was qui to p:ropcr in the circt..:msta.nces and furt!.10r suh,1i ttocl tlmt the learned ClJ.ief Justice I s finding that there ua.s not in ex.i stence a DMZ to whicl1 Small Sim ba could have appcal].dd was quite justifiodo According to Hr. Naira the respondents sb.ould have SOU{sht to have the matter removed into the ITie;h Cov.:rt by way of origj_nating sw:lli10ns and obtain leave to ap1Jly for an o::rde:;:- of ccrtio:mri g Tho;y should not have cor.io by way of Chamber Summons and :px-ocoeded tho way they did. Du:rin[a( the learned exch;:i.rJGOS in court, however, l,b.'. Na.ira conceded that certiorari was not tho only rcrnod;r in such a si tut1.tion. Inst0ad of obtaining leave ' to apply for that o:.rdcr a part;y can :roach the Jligh Court, for example by wa;y- of review ox by 1ro.y of a su.:i. t. Under section 3( 1) of the High Cov.i·t Act, 1985, tho IIigh Cot:J:t of Zanzi ba.x• has unlimited ju:dsdiction and we do not agree with Nr. r:Iaira•s s·1..1-escstion that Hiernboni could only have gone there b:i7 way of o:..~ieinating s1.m1illons. 'l'his was in effect a suit brought in 4 substantial complianoo with the Civil Er·ocedu:re Decree. On the second vital issue the loarnod Chief Justice had this to say~ "Hi dliclliri kwangu pia ln.u-,a mud.a wa mial:o. miwili wa hawa wajumbo umektri.sha. Kwa niaba :·a Nicmbeni imcolozewa l:.:uua. J3araza lilianza 1mzi tm'oho 1 JuJ.ai 1984. Taxcho hiyo haiku.J.r~nushwa lcwa 1tla.ba ya Dara.za na. ua.la haiku.tolewa tarcho yo yote. rtl vyo nacb.uku.J.ia lama tarohe 1u. hiyo ya Jule..i 1, 1984., 11 Compv.tin&· trro years fror.1 J1..1ly 1 1984 we find that the life span of tho n.:z ended on 30th Juno 19860 The purported D!-.:Z decision was t1a.do on 28th July 1987. Uc do not w:i.sh to spend are,"'t.Ullont on the position of ox officio mcmbo1·a in t!10 J3UZ, hou manJr of those wcro on tho lib::ocutivo Committee uhich made tho plll'ported- BUZ decision etc., because those matters would only 1:,o relovant only if we ncr0 satisfied that thoro i-,as at tho r,1ate1•:i.al time a :miZ in o:tistcnooo The cvldoncc available osta~Jlishca that thG loarned Ch:i.ef Justioo was co:crcct in llolding ·i;b.c..t :DJ.JZ was non-existent at the mato:rial time. If thoro was any doubt ovo:r- this, and -ue arc sntisfied there was none, it was :romoved by a Govcrnmc11t Pross Iloloasc made available one day after tho Ilic;h Co;:rt judgement vtas delivorcd. The Ilic;l1 Court jlJ..cl50mo11t was dolivcrad on 19/8/87, the Press },cloase was on the morrou. According to tho J?rcss ;~elease, a 110;-1 J3MZ was const:i.tuted on that day, 19/8/87, to take over f:t'om the p:rovious one which had lapsed the preyious February 12th, that is 12/2/67. So that oven by this xeckonine thoro 1,as no m-12 in cxiatcncc when the purported. Br.iZ decision was ma.do on 28th Jul~r 1987 o If, as lI"ro !1ai:ro. says, tho old DEZ na.s filling a vacuum before the new appointment, uo only wish to say that ::oucvor troll-weaning they might have boon they Hore in..9~x., they sim11ly had no m,thori ty to otand in for an ins ti tut ion which had ceased to exist o Mr. Haira conceded t!:i.a t to extend tho life 0 •• /5 \. 5 span of DNZ is not one of tl1e powers confm:rod on the T!iai::rtcr rosponsiblo -foi· Sports o.nd, in any event, tho J:Ii:1iste:i:.' did not pretend to havo such ::;:iowoxso Ao there uas no JJLIZ in oristoncc, ti:r. Eaira cannot :i:•cly on the nutho1~i ty of :r:.:::ICDI f.£l.IJ.'.:..:NI v J?.J;3TO Gr\ }iTGOWI ( 1975 h.lT ¢ 66) for the proposition th~t l1c1Ii1adhani Chief Justice should have :rcrni ttcd tho matter bc'1.ck to a p:co1)0:dy - consti tutod DIIZ. Thero 1ro.s none in existence at the mutcrio.l time and tho learned Chief Justice :::100 of course no poucrs to order tho fori::ation of a DriZ. It lrould have been futilo for tho Hi&h Court to make orders it had no ponor to follow up. In / IL:1.:U.lJAl:IT v lJG01ff there was al:roadY tho .iLcnt T:dbu.nal in existence. ~ The 1)osi tion is now tl1orofore t:mt 1JOca.·.. ,so there was no JTZ in oxistoncc at the L.1ateri.al time there uas no :CL"Z dccisiono The so-called JJHZ decision upsetting tl10 ZFA decision declaring Kior.1bcni tho wi1111ors is therefore null rmd voido Tho ZiD'A decision therefore stands. 'l1horo can "be no appeal directly from ZJ..?A to the l1igh Cov. rt. Appeal fl•om a Zli'A decision lies to a properly - co:ast:i. tntcd J31!1Z. This appcul l)y Small Simba is without mcri t and is hereby dismissed with costso Dy way of postscript and ltopefv.lly wi thov.t stepping on 2.nylJod.y' s tocs 1 we wish to associate otu'Sclves ui th the sucmestion made by tho lea1·nod Cb.icf Justice that m.z would do well to avail f itself of legal £:,'V.iclanco. Wo \-r.ish to add :that we were practically beuildorod by the J.aby.cinth of clnost perennial crops of Ro 0~c1.lations and Addenda issuing from ZFA which is an i:,sti tution u.ndor rn;z. 6 DATED at i'~;ilfZITuill thl s of JanuarJ·, 1988. /,. ·' '. JULTIC:J}' Ofl' /{£f-:Jiu, <-:-~:---:-~~2'/ n. n. 1er:::;1uJGA --------- JUwTICIJ OF lu'PI!A.L f. A, r.1. 1.\. OIJ.1.U JUSTIC:8 01;, J.' J._l}ISJU. I cc:.:-tify that this is a. true coJiy of tho o:i'.'ieina.l. Jt- ='.-J __-=-J t ( J .J.i1. _._ I~ci·.cimJA) U RTilGISTilll.R