20030523 TZHC Dr es Salaam

I IN THE HIGH COURT OF Ti\NZJ':NIA AT DAR :rn -----··--__,. SAL.!'J\M ...,_.__._--,,.._ crnL CASE NO. "3 OF 2001 - HON. Zf.MD/1 SALUM DOZEEN (MP) PL!iiliTIFF _ VersuB rm. TRUSTEFS OF TIIi:; CIVJ4, UNITED DEFENDANT J. U D •GM= ENT -~ !HEMA ·- J: ,....,;..t.."'MIIW / The plaintiff Hon. Zamda Salum Do7.,z&n a member of the Civic United ... Front ·Party (CUF, ·e. ~litical ~rty since f➔ugust 1992 ,,,as nominated to ._./.. F8rliament on special wor:en' s seats on the CUF ticket follol-fing the country-ts general elections of 2000. She w~s introduced to the Clerk of the Natunal Assembly on 29th November 2000 vide letter CUF/OK/AKM/ · ?H/2!J00/55 by Wilfred M. I.wake.tare Deputy Secretary General of CUF and wa.s du-ly sworn 1n as Member of Parliament on "30th January 2001. Following _1)0St election misunderstandings between CUF and the ru.1iDg Chama cha Mapinduzi in Zanzibar CUF directed thet all those who had b e e n ~ or nominated to l'arliament and the House of Ilepresenta. 't-ives on its ticked should not tr•ke up their seats. The plain tiff decided not to obey the directive on the ground according to her th~t the direetive was illegal, uneonsitutional end contrary to the Standing Orders and I ' a r l ~ hoeee.dinga Rules of the National Assembly. "1Ythermore in the plaintiff's view the directives were m~de through radio broadcasts and not communicated to her in writing. Subsequantly on 7th _February 2001 the plaintiff, who was in Dodoma attending par~nta:ey SMsion, heard a news bulletin on Radio Free Africa thet she had been stripped of hel' party membership in ebsent1a o,- the Madaraks CuF Branch in Tab-'.>ra which met on 5th February 2001 Oil the grounds of betrayal and disloyalty. I.n addition the pl~intiff l~arnt frem the print and electrical media of the confirme-tion of her dismissal fl"om membership of CUF' at e. ,special !1nnual general meeting of CUF. Following the dismissal, the plaintiff has filed a suit in this honourable court pr~ying for judgment and decree againr-t the Registered 1rustees of the Civ:\.c United Front Party the first defen9ant 1 the Civic United Front .Tarty, 2nd defendant and Maelim Seif Sharrif Ham,..d, 'Jhe C1JF Secretu,, Gperal, ,rd DefendF.nt, jointly and severelly. The plail,tiff .,. .• "./2 ____ , 2 P1"8Y13 that-:- (a) She is ~,t:Ll::.. ,., bonei'ide and lev1ful member of the 2nd defendant (b) Her perported dismisE al and or confirm.:ition thereof ia illegal, void and cc:· t-rary to the Natiom~.l Constitution and CUF1 s Constitutucin (c) Costs of the suit and (d) Any other relief that this honourable Court may deem fit to grant. ;. It is to be noted further thcit . the plaintiff h/!;'ls given the following particulars in suppor:t of her claims:.• (1) The Madar&.ka i'".'anch has never hF-d any meeting or gt-ithering th~t dismissed her from the mem~ship as pet. the directive and the constitution. of {;t.,1F Party (2) Assuming that the Madaraka Branch held the said me•ting and dismissed her without her knowledge, the s~id dism1$sal Ls· lillegal and unconstitutional as there was no ground for dismi..~Eal and that she was not Dfforded an opportunity to be leard before the said meeting took a dee is ion against her {3) fue plaintiff was not afforfed an opportunity to be heard before the Annual special G2neral Meeting (5) The decision of 2nd Defendant; GUF that aims at removing the plaintiff f:t>om (her) po~:i.tion as a,;' member of parliament is null anc:J void a,s it contravenji). ,1rticle 8; of the Constitutionr (5) ~er& was no gMund at all to dismiss the plaintiff from 2nd Defendant as what .~l':.e did was in accordance with the l~w an~ Constitution of the 1~nd. (6) 'lhe purported illegal removal of the _phintiff from 2nd Defendant shell h~ve effect of depriving her a riP,ht to pcrtici:pate in the politicel life of the nation end represe:pi;ing women constituency in the N~tion~l f.s,sembly. In their joint written statement of defence the defen0~nts h~ve denied the tru-to of the contents Qf the plaint.iff 1 s cl~im Einc1 st~te that the dismi.ssa1 of the phintiff fr,:.m CTJF was lege.l Dnd con"titution~l, . . ,f ' Yalidl.y anrj prq~~J.y ~riedout~ The ~efendonts h~ve st~ted further th~t the Madorclro CUF L'l'rrnch set am:. deliberoted on the dismis&i-1 of the pl.c.intiff M per Ji.nnexture i:p,;. <;opy of the minutes of the delibe:ro-tiocs n.nd tk,t the Specio.l Annuol Ge1,er0l meeting wns propezly held foll~itlg ' . the plnint:;i.ff '-S clismiss:il by the M.::d~r::i.k3 Br~nch. The defend.-:rflts h ~ve preyed- for the diami2so.l of the ~uit with cor-;ts4 In her ~ight of' reply to the joint written st'.'.ltement of defence tho pl:iintiff !J.!'.1! nverred to the effect th~t nny decision~ m-~de by ~ny s~h meeti.ng&-crumot st:ind for being in ,,foletion of the I'bintiff 1 s in'ui__..., right of n hecring :::md for being to.inted with bfos. On 12th December zoo~ when the tri::>l commenced two iR~ues i.-..e., .. • · A were fromed mid ogr~.&d to..b;1 the p'.1rties n~mely:- (i) Whether the pl~intiff wns l..,wfully expelled from the Civic United Front P-::irty -:ind (U) to wh::it reliefs nre the p~rties entitled to. It i.s on record thit the plr,intiff g.-::ve her sole testimoncy in SUpptft of her cl-:ims, while the de~endr:nts listed the following five witnessed, nrnnely! Rich .... rd .Trunbwe, Sh.".lb.,-ni K'.'lsuwi, HMlifC'c Mtoro, Dr. Aziz K-ssim .:i.nd lbl~ Rajabu but ·vs. the·~cord will show only H::,lifa Mtoro (DW1) testified fet" the defend~ntso Mornndo, Mnyele & Co. Advoc2tes represented the pl~intiff while Mr. "!~slinm of Toslimn L'.Jl'i Chrutlbers i',.dvoc~tes odvoctted for the Defendants but , wi.thdrew from represent,tion Oll. 23rd Jl'.'np,:'lry 200~ ::ifter the testimony of Hali"fo. Mto:ro (DW1) for whot he termed n hfa clients' distru/:\t in him in r.ep:J:e.Sentlilg t ~ in the ihr-:t,:,nt c::ise. 11 'Ihe court con€'oouently gr.:111ted i~ave to M!P 1 T:tqlim~ to wi thdrow from representing the defendtmts' • !n nddf.t-j..~n for r,:;cord· pu;!'JX)BeS I hr·ve con~idered it ~~, to put •n record wh~t I connider to be s:-1:1.ent points which ch:"r-cterized the · •iaJ. in. ~ti.cul~ the con.d:uct protr:i.yed ~y the defen<l".'nts which ~ i - t.::ited - to clo2e he-ning of the defence c~se \••ith the ter::timony of the ~ingle --defence~~ - fI.?lif"l M:lioro ... DW1. On 27th December 200? when DW1 clo~ed ,his testimony, Mr,. Tt:lslim'"l le~rn&d Ad'\f'oc~te informed the court th~t hiP second witness Mr. Sh~b~n Jumr\ Kasui who w~s in cou.rt w~s not feeling well -~ad th ... t his ellther witnesses were n :,t present .".\s such he pr."-yed fo!' t.1djournmcnt; J3y conF?ent hi=.~rin~ wc.s adjo~irned to ?.-:ind, · 23rd .:-:nd 2~th Jonuery 200~"' Ho'40-ve~ the " ~ could .;:iot J>-':'Q1:eed for he"ring en the respective d'.'tes for some .;.o::iaQ1'& c..dll!l.nced 'by the, defence cou::::i,,.el including the prriyer for hi.s: ••••••/4 tt A 4 - withdrawal on 23/0V2003. Dy consent hearing was adjourned to 20th and 21st_ February 200~ to allow the defendants time to c,btain services of another advocate. The Court ordered the defendants to prCcsent their witnesses on the respective dates• but for reB.sons beyond control the case could not px-dceed for he1;1ring and instead summons were issued to all the parties to the effect that hearing of the suit was fixed for 28th ~pril, 2003. It is on N=oord that on 28th 1:pril, 200~ there was no new advocl'lte in the place of Mr. Taslima, instead a letter from Tasl:ima Ch~.mbers !idvocates wae presented to.the court requesting for adjournment due to Mr. Tasl:ima's absence f~om Dar es Salaam 8~d further that Mr. Tasl:ime wos now in conduct of the suit. None of foe defendants were present on thB.t day. At the iltterv~ntion of Mr. Hnyele learned advocate for the pla.intiff the court rejected the letter under reference 3nd inr-teP.d directed one Abub&k"'·r ' Rakhesh, who had introduced himself to have come from the offices of the defendants, to notify the defendants and thier advocBtes th?t he~ring w~s to proceed e.s scheduled. A brief adjournment was granted to allow Mr • . Abubakar Rakheab, to ccmnrunicate the directive to the defendents. On ~~ion of the hearing neither the defendtnts nor their advocates and wj.tnessea ~ d . ~/hereat the court in terms of the provisions of Orders ' IX Ru.le 12t XVII Rule, of the Civil I--Tocedure Code ordered to proceed to 8ettrmine the suit ori the evidence on record. The court; ordered the I plaintiff to file written submissions to argue the suit. N&edless to say it iR cle~r from the conduct· of the clefend!'nts·'-.!md the~ adv~te th~t they (defendonts) foiled .:ind were not interested b defending- +h~ euit ond instead they resorted to del~ying t~ctic~. It is quite '\.Ulfort\1.n"te th,,t Mr. T'."'slinw le::rned odvoc.:i.te r.ind · nn officer of the· court 1 l i d ~ ~tt-ed- the defendonts in their del"yed bctics. But \,1-ti.g~tiT~d to come to Dn end tis such the l~w nnd the rules of precedure hove t~ be in-roked in the intere~ta of justice • .AJ.l soid let me now f!POCee-d to consider the issues in the suit on ~ ~e on record. I will st:::rt with the fir,c;t '•issue., n~mely - ~1h•thel" the plointiff was lcwfilly expelled from the Civic United Front . fol'iY• in her evidence jJl -«>m't the pbintiff informed the court that she I ..#let invit~d to end w~s not ;present ot the Jvbd:1r,kn F"rty Dr.,nch Wt'lS · ~ 5-n ~borD on 5th Feb:.'uory 2003 which expelled .her from Ct'JT r.--r;y- aa abR- we.- in ~o!io o ~ n g ')-:irliomento:ry i;;ession. In cdclition it h.,s ,.,,,.. ___ .,.,1.5 •. i ..., 5 not been disputed th~t the pl'.'lintiff was not invited to :-:ttend the Special Annunl general meetinCT of CL'F f..,rty in Znnzibr:.r in April 2001 where:tt the 1 s~cking of the pl9intiff fro~ CL1F wos confirmed. Although the defend~nts in their joint stDtement of defence stated th~t the M~d~rnk~ CUF Dr:mch set c.1nd delibernt&d on the dismissal of the plaintiff, ~n ~ction which w:-s foulld proper by the Special Annunl Gener:il Meeting, there is indeed no evidence to controvert the pbintiff1 s ~ssertion th~t she wos nccorded the right of heoi-ing. llie minutes ·of the M~drir~k:l Dronch P~rty meeting mm." A4 to the joint written st'.'.ltement of defence as well '.:IS the evidence of H~lift\ Mtoro (DW1) the only defence ,-,itness do confirm th:-t the pl:i.intiff did not o.ttend the meeting convened ::1, ~ m:--tter l'lf urgency to deliber~te on the pl~intiff., In DW1 ts own odmission wk;_le giving his evidence in court 1 the meeting of 5th Februory 2001 expelled the pl "iritiff in nb.sentia. On the evidence on record wns -the pl:d.ntiff l "'wfully expelled from the Civic United 1-:iront }~rty. 'Ihe onswer ir- cle~rly in the neg,tive. The evidence is clenr th~t the pl~intiff wos expelled from the p~rt-y without notice ond without being heard., /\s resto.ted by the Court of Appe'."11 of Tonzoni'.:i in the cose of PU' VS TESHA & TESHA (1993) TLR 277 11 it is --:: c~rdin:'l principle of n:d:ttt:ll ;justice thr~t :i p-:irty 8hould not be conde!'.llned unhe ... rdo II Fu.rlhhermore the principle of n::·h~_,:< justice on the ,right to be he"rd is o constitution!:!l right entP.&nche<l in ~rticle 13 (6) (D) of the Constitution of the United Republie of Tanz~ni~, while ~ticle 10 (5) of CUF F~rty Constitution olso restotes the cordin~l pr~ciple of the right to be heDrd. Article 10 ,f 'CUF OCM t1 tuti~m st.,tes o.nd I qur,te: (5) kujiteteo mbele y, chombo chochote ch~ Ch'.'mn r,ke sic ch::tke kin2chot~k~ kumchukulic h~tun zo nidh::unu dhidi yoke na kuomb.:i kuk-·t'.' rufo::i h-;di .kufiki~ ng'.".zi y-:-. mwzlsho •ikiwo h::it::iridhishK~: n::. u:imuzi uliokwish,t,.,lewc ........... " It is therefore gtlte evidi-:rit th::it in ex:pellil'lg the pl"ointiff from CUF P~ty in obsentia 2nd withovt notice the defend:n,ts were in fl,::igrnnt bre~ch of the c~rdi1rl principle of the right to be he:rd which i:3 enshrined il'i the country 1 s bosic law ie the constitution ns well o.s their veiry ~onstitution. It. needs n o ~ tht1t the right to be he~rd iF :i b:isic fundamental humcn right which ought to be respected ,nd protected at .'.:111 eost. It ia idle t) crgue ns Mr. ~:~.kkesh .'.l st,:y:J.:.f£ prind.p·:-.1 officer of the t!efendonts hM OI\?.,1lec ,.·; the de:1\rnd::ints joint tn-i tten submis~ion filed on 28th Mo.y 200~rr th..-,t s.'r,;c -:' .· -~-, -· .. n t ~ '.:'..[ ~ ""'-'= :11,·,:l're .of the st-nd bken by ........ ./6 -f r 6 CUF Party t~ward the result of the gene!"9-l ,election of" 20M and ~he did ,tt<)"t deny ·to go age.inst the said stend, whet e:Lse did she ~ t other t-h8n , .. _.. having· a d.lilciplinary aetion taken egeinst her by the J;>&rty. 11 I find Mi-. Rakkesh's argment to be misconceived and µ-relevant to the isi?"Ue undff '' ~9D5idera·i.ion the answer te Mr., Rakkesh 1 s argment lies 1.- Artiele 1& (.5) c;f-CUF . Party Constitution ented t1b-;ive to the effect th~t the i,laintitt'M<f ~ . t1 be given an -opportunity for a fa.ir hearing before disciplU"·ry setiffl ~s taken .against her ... That trea·~-ment wos n·et accor(led to her ~es:Jrl.ie tM. ~iear rrovisions ,;f the Fe.rt:f Considtution. ·" .. My attc.a1ti0ll has ~lso ~en dra-..m to yet ~nothe~ t:qnPtii:oaticmli1 ~ I ,, . . . . ... . ~~a.ting t" discriminatio:i:-.. in that erily womeJ1. members '~f parlianKlnt from . fanz . ·•aania ma~and wore e~elled from the Farty. ie~~ing. their male . ~ _ - ~ to oontinu~ as P<li<liamenta.rians .. The plaintiff a femal.e member ef lUU'lia.nte~ .·. received sUch a di.scriniine.tory treatment. I make a :firm t:indi~ th~ -this decision 1y CU/ Party is indeed di.3criminatory hence\unconstitu- .. ◄p:,nal aJld illegal. There is yet another aspect on whether or not the plaintiff \Jae lawrul~ · timnins&i fNm, -cTJF· Party. On· 9th June 2001 the Madaraka Branch farty held ~ 1 " 'f!J&et-iltg 'at the instance of the Party Headquarters in Dar e$ .Salaai!l tj ?.eliJ.eir~-~ on. the plaintiff's issue, in her ab,,ence, During cross ~ DW1 is reeorded to h~ve-said and quote: I did not quercy . p .~UD& as to the relevance of this me€ting despite my mowledge thtt ithe· -pl.a.i.D,tiff lw.d been expelled at the meeting held on 5/2/01." EK-hibit ., P4 is a 1 ~ ..written from CUF I-arty Headquarters to the l'.i.aoer~ka rrsneh, - ~ with the following key words and phrases clec1rly menitesting . W:es ~in,e&t ~ plaintiff who cometed in he1• teetimony receipt e,.f thir ~ . ".' Usaliti mkubwa ; 11 " Kinyume !l-" rr.a::>gizo, 11 u tawi lichukue fr-tu!! ze. k;inj,dhan,u Qhidi y.:.1ke. 11 _As COIToot'ly submitted by M'.:!~ndo, Mnyele r-< Co Advoc~tes, it ii"! cleer- . ~ the, branch was ordered to t~·ke discipli~ry ection· to the extent that the branch even if it could hn.ve ceJ.led a proper meeting it coold not ~ - ~ 'j'W:J,tice to -the plaintiff. :n their 1\lrther submis.""ion the lea~d a ~ for the plaintiff have reiterated the rule again~t bias (NEMO .JtrIDEil in CAUSA St.A) with emph::si...c; to the present case th~t an adjudicP.tor mue.t not be rea.soMbly suspected or ehow a real likelihood of bie.s. I.agree .and ~ld tlmt the circumst.2.noes thnt prev~iled :in the CUF Party a~ the time ,- . cl~.rly sho:werl ®bS't~ntiU ;,ossi:1ility of bias, os such neither the two me&tings. Ol't 5/2/01 end 9/6/(Yt ....,..:ra n~,,c1l-¥ rM c:N>-ru::-""' ~ ~w tice to. the ;p\-,intiff • .-. ;-.... -,, ..jl , . 'f •; ·'· 1: . I .r,,: . : "'llH·· tr?-=- 7 The lenrned a<rl'()Ootes for- the pl~intiff h~s further m~de ~ference to Q quott:l'tion by P.P. Croig in his book titled" 1;dminirtr~tive t~w, 2nd Edition nt ~~ge 232 to underscore the -point th~t bi~s i~ yet ~nother fundnment~l bre~ch of n~tur~·l justice. The le~rned ~uthor ~t,tes ~nd I i:,u.etet t: the second limb of n~tur~l justice i~~ th..,t decisioD8 F.~ould be m"'de fllt9 from bios or i.tl'.ytrti!llity. These cu-e J.)I'oblems 'Where the deci"'ion m-:ka- u: . interested in the result of en inquirry <>r i~tt:tion, .not in o.n,- .r~oa_, ".sense, but because the institution which he represente is ~irous of pttl'ining o. cert~·in ob_jective." On· the ~~ I'e,c.ord i!t ~ be, denied th--it the ~hove i,.yositiott ,f ... the 1::-.w ie relev~nt to the present c~se cs the M~<Wr~k, Drr.ineh •f Olli ~ ~le:irly i.."lterested in depriving the pl~intiff • f her p,,rty mem'beitebi wpile the p~rty he~'.:'·ri:-es hnd m"de its mind tis to the guilt of the pl'"'intif• ~ ! t e the ?le~r pr'ovision8 of Article 71 (1) (c) of the Coni:;titutic,n cf the Un!~ed n.epublie of Tonz9ni~ to the effect thnt she could only !~il -~ ~~tend. p:::irlioment with the express le:Ne of the ~periker. It would theretsre ;:·· Ul.l.mr ~s C01'1'COt1y ~ed' ~ the ]g.,.rne.d ~-o-oc~tes for the pl ,in tiff th:-t t' the _Pe1.rty directives not to ~ttena l;.wful. pcrlb~t:i:i::,,·ge-ssio= JitU.e .JUeg.,l 0-fi such 1'10!1 ~oll!Plumce <>~ ,disobedience of illeg~l directives c~nnot oon,...ti:t.,ije. M .o.tfa~ 1-.e:uiing to D dep,'!'ivdion cf p~rty memhe:rahip .. l !\,(!.COrdinp:!..,. ~ With reg!:ird to the second br-.:ue, tkit i:-· to wh:it reliefs ·"re the p'.'."rt~ entitled, I note th~t both p--rties h·ve: subl:litted interesti"nt; ~1tioi,s i?i b~~. Mr n:~itesh ~or the defond::ints h~sc.e,'\~ th~t even if it m~y be eQ;lle¢ s~sfully ·th.'.lt principles of n":tur~1 -juetice were not ~ . . wii;h ltefo~ ~ the pl -:-inti ff 1 courts :should be very c,r;reful in gr~ting retll8dies for br~~hes of n"tur.il judice to the extern! thrt n,:it . e"fery pr"'yer en -'D ~lleged bret~ch ·will be :;r:-inted. 'Ihe Engli....,h c:ise of Glynn Vs University of Kettle (1971) I \'/LR 487 ns well ~s the book on Constitutien'.'.ll ~nd f\c1~1inistroti1te L~w by De Smith - New Edition ot p:1ge ,88 were QU9ted :in support• For record purposes ond eMy of reference the outhorites Yespective ::u-e reproduced: .° Courts m.:::y refuse o remedy desptte o bre~ch of n"tur::11 justice where in the eircumstm~ces it ir felt fo::it there i"' rio merit in the o.pplie'.'-nt 1s ease or it is ·cle'):i: th:-t even if n~tur~l justice F.'.lS scrur,uleuely-. observed the C'lpPl:.cont would still h'."ve met the G"rne f~te." tt Where the conduct ef the person cl~imiBg to be effected by the den io.l of he~ring ~s such ta" t he could h ~ve no legi tim~~ te exp~etotion of c. he~rins.a ···~·/8 1 .,. 8 The ~bove quot.-:ition,,: h'1ve to be considered ~nd ~~~l'lg~inPt the express ond cl&-xc provisions of well est,bli~hed fund~ment~l pr&nciples of n:--turD.l justice which for ovoid'.'lnce of nny doubt ~re entrenched in the bo.sic 1:i.,,r of the 1 --nd ~nn the ClIF P'.:lrty - ie the Cons ti tu tions. These ' principles of l:::w h"ve ::i. binding effect to ~11 concerned ~nd '.'re p~,romeunf in sefegu:-:irding the bosic right of ~m indif idu!ll , As I h..,ve Bt?ted e~rlier.- on these principles shotld not only be obeyed.but OlBO protectea.·For the ' . ret1.sons I h-:ive given judgment ir: gro.nted to the pl-·intiff ns :pr?.yed ~nd on the following terms, n~mely:- (1) tho.t the pl"intiff's purported dismiss·'.:'.l by the Mndor,ko Dro.nch CUF Torty at T~boro end the confirm~tion thereto by the Spec:i..'.:ll Annu!ll Genernl Meeting of CUF Onrty i~ V4dd for being illeg~l"nd unconstitution..,l. The s-'.l!lle fo quoshed ond set ~side. (2) th-:-t the pl -:-in tiff is still o bon~fide ~nd 1 "'wful member e;f the Civil United Front r.··rty ::·nd ::i member of I'"'rlfo.ment of the United Republic of Tonz~ni~. (3) th~t co~t 9 of the suit be ~~rded to the pl..,intiff ng~in~t the def.sndnnts. Order ~COO!'dingly. Jmxrn DJ/Sl 9-~!8 I CJi:H'JlEY l'H1IS I& .:'I.. TTIF.E COl·Y DF •_arr,; Ol;ErJJIJLL ,:UJX.H-DNT., S.AoLJLA DI.S'!.'RICT HFBIGTJlAR ---~~.a:.-~-~ I