GERALD LATAEL URASSA AND 2 OTHERS V TANZANIA RAILWAYS CORPORATION AND 3 OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA TABORA SUB-REGISTRY MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL CAUSE NO. 1518 OF 2025 In the Matter of Application for Leave to Apply for Orders of Certiorari, Mandamus and Prohibition, And In the Matter of the Law of Reform (Fatal Accidents and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, [CAP 310 R.E 2019] And In the Matter of the Law Reform (Fatal Accidents and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Judicial Review Procedure and Fees) Rules GN No. 324 of 2014 And In the Matter of an Application for Leave to file Judicial Review to Challenge the Decision of Her Excellency the President of the United Republic of Tanzania And In the Matter of Wrongful Misapplication of the Law and Contravention of the Rules of Natural Justice And In the Matter of an Application for Leave to file Judicial Review to Challenge the Decision of Her Excellency the President of the United Republic of Tanzania Affirming the Decision of the Investigation Committee, for Being Illegal, Irrational, Tainted with Procedural Impropriety, Breech of Principles of Natural Justice and Legitimate Expectation

BETWEEN 1. GERALD LATAEL URASSA 2. CHRISTOPHER SILVERY DIU APPLICANTS 3. YALED CHRISTIAN MWENUNGE AND 1. TANZANIA RAILWAYS CORPORATION -| 2. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 3. THE CHIEF SECRETARY RESPONDENTS 4. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL J 1

RULING 25th March and 10th April, 2025 MIRINDO, J.: [1] Three former employees of the Tanzania Railways Corporation, namely, Gerald Latael Urassa, Christopher Silvery Diu and Yaled Christian Mwenunge are applicants before the High Court at Tabora. They were each dismissed from public service and are now seeking leave to apply for prerogative orders of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition after final decisions of Her Excellency the President of the United Republic of Tanzania. The Respondents entered appearance and the application was heard inter parties. [2] The applicants had the services of Advocate Frank Kavishe while the four respondents were collectively represented by a team of State Attorneys consisting of Mr. Innocent Rweyemamu, Ms. Adasa Kefa, and Mr. Samwel Mahuma. [3] Mr. Kavishe argued that the joint application satisfies all the conditions for granting leave and he sought reliance on the Court of Appeal’s decision in Emma Bayo v The Minister for Labour and Youths Development and Others (Civil Appeal 79 of 2012) [2013] TZCA190. Mr. Kavishe argued that all the applicants have established an arguable case in their separate affidavits in that they were dismissed without being accorded the right to be heard. Besides, the application has been filed within the prescribed period of six months and the all of them have sufficient interest to bring the application. He

concluded that the decision dismissing the applicants constituted an 2 exercise of public law by Her Excellency the President of the United Republic of Tanzania. Mr. Kavishe stressed that Her decisions are final and the applicants have no alternative remedy. [4] The respondents resisted the application but Mr. Rweyemamu drew the attention of the Court to the fact that this is a joint application for leave to apply for judicial review composed of joint statement and joint prayers in the chamber summons, there was no joint decision of Her Excellency the President of the United Republic of Tanzania. Mr. Rweyemamu surmised that there was no arguable case and so naturally they had nothing to say on the rest of the conditions for obtaining leave. Mr. Kavishe stood his ground and maintained that there is no statutory provision prohibiting joint application for judicial review. He saw no problem with joint application and mentioned the case of Halima James Mdee and Others vs Board of Trustee of Chama Cha Demokrasia Na Maendeleo (CHADEMA) and Others (Miscellaneous Cause 16 of 2022) [2022] TZHC 10206 where a joint application for judicial review was successfully conducted. [5] The applications for judicial review are substantially governed by the Law Reform (Fatal Accidents and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Judicial Review Procedure and Fees) Rules, 2014. Rule 4 recognises the right of a

person affected by an administrative action to apply for judicial review. There is direct mention of joint applications but implicit in that rule is persons who are jointly interested may apply for judicial review. [6] What is a joint interest? The answer to question is not found in these Rules but Rule 17 directs this Court, for matters not covered by the rules, to be governed by its general rules of practice and procedure. Order 1 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code 3 caters for cases of several plaintiffs and set conditions where there may be several plaintiffs. It provides two conditions and the first one is the existence of a right to relief arising from the same act or transaction or series of transactions. The second condition is that common questions of law or fact could arise if separate suits are filed. [7] It is clear from the applicants’ pleadings each applicant was charged separately before the Investigation Committee. The first applicant, Gerald Latael Urassa, was charged on 13th February 2022 with three counts. He appeared before the Investigation Committee on 26th May 2022 and received the termination letter on 22nd August 2022. He successfully appealed to the Commission of Civil Servants on 7th September 2022 on thirteen grounds. The Tanzania Railways Corporation was dissatisfied with the appellate decision and on 15th December 2023 appealed to Her Excellency

the President of the United Republic of Tanzania. Finally, Her Excellency the President of the United Republic allowed the appeal in a letter communicated to the first respondent on 12th September 2024. [8] The second applicant, Christopher Silvery Diu, was charged on 6th June 2022 with one count. His appearance before the Investigation Committee was on 26th September 2022 and his termination letter was dated on 12th December 2022. He appealed to the Commission for Civil Servants on 23 January 2023 on eleven grounds and his appeal was allowed. The Tanzania Railways Corporation appealed to Her Excellency the President of the United Republic of Tanzania on 15th December 2023 and the appeal was allowed and he received the termination letter on 24th September 2024. 4 [9] The third applicant, Yaled Christian Mwenunge, was charged before the Investigation Committee on 22nd February 2022 with five counts, and received the termination letter on 28th July 2022. He appealed on 7th September 2022 to the Commission for Civil Servants on thirteen grounds. The Commission allowed the appeal. The Tanzania Railways Corporation appealed on 15th September 2023 to Her Excellency the President of the United Republic of Tanzania who allowed the appeal through a letter of 12th September 2024. [10] It is common ground that all the three applicants were dismissed from public service after final

decisions of Her Excellency the President of the United Republic of Tanzania. Yet it is undisputed that all of them faced different disciplinary offences and went through separate disciplinary proceedings and appellate proceedings. Neither do these facts originate from the same disciplinary offences nor do they give rise to they constitute a common question of law if separate applications were to be filed. The simple fact that all of the three applicants were dismissed from public service for committing some disciplinary offences does not in itself in this case constitute a common question of law or fact likely to give rise to some like res judcato or issue estoppel. [11] Much as these findings indicate lack of a joint interest among the applicants, I disagree with Mr. Rweyemamu that the application be dismissed for undisclosed arguable case. Rather the application is unbefitting for that determination because it is embarrassing to the respondents. A pleading is embarrassing when it does not clearly state the case that the opposite party is called upon to meet at the trial (Mulla DF, Mulla: Code of Civil Procedure, 18th edn (Prasao BM and Mohan BM), Vol 2, Haryana: 5 Lexis Nexis, 2011, at 1745). The embarrassing nature of the application is further evident from the fact it rests on every conceivable ground for judicial review [12] These complaints form part of three separate

applications for leave to apply for judicial review and there should be distinct prayers for judicial review. [13] An embarrassing pleading is liable to be struck out under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court or under the provisions of Order 6 Rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Code. Accordingly, I strike out the application for leave with costs. DATED at TABORA this 10th day of April 2025. F.M. MIRINDO

JUDGE COURT: Ruling delivered in chambers this 10th day of April 2025 in the presence of the applicants in person and in the presence of their counsel, Mr. Frank Kavishe and in the presence of Mr. Gureni Mapande, State Attorney, for the respondents. B/Clerk: Omari Mkongo (SRAAA) present. F.M. MIRINDO

JUDGE 6 COURT: Right of appeal explained. RM. MIRINDO

JUDGE 10/4/2025 7