jina khatibu haji vs juma selemani nungu and another 1987 tzca 25 22 july 1987

C IVIL APPE.iL NO. 2J OP J I M K H A T I B U HAJI •APPEC.LAUT and 1, JTJMA SSL331MI N U N G U .RESPONDENTS 2* T H E HON. THE A T T O R N E Y GENERAL (Appeal from the D e c i s i o n o f the H i g h Court o f T a n z a n i a at D a r es Salaam)(MAPIGANO, J 0 ) da t e d the 2 7 t h day o f September, 1986 in C ivil. C_aus_e N o , 9.6 o f 15)83 JUDGE IBM) _NYALALI,_ C . J . s This is a n appeal b y one J I N A K H A T I B U HAJI o n p r e l i m i n a r y m a t t e r s o f l a w c o n c e r n i n g an election p e t i t i o n case instituted in the H i g h Co u r t o f The U n i t e d Republic o f Tanzania, at Dar es Salaam, c h a l l e n g i n g the v a l i d i t y of the elect i o n results in the Parl i a m e n t a r y elections held in the M v e r a C o n s t i t u e n c y on the 27th October, 1985 in Zanzibar. J i n a K h a t i b u Haji^ h e r e i n a f t e r c-lled the appellant, was one of two candidates fie l d e d b y the P a r t y to contest the election in that constituency. The a p p e l l a n t ’s opponent w a s one JTO'iA SULE H I A H NUEC-U, her e i n a f t e r c a l l e d the first respondent^ w h o w o n the election. W h e n the p e t i t i o n camo up for hear i n g in the H i g h Court o f t h e U n i t e d Re p u b l i c o n the 1 6 t h September, I Q S 6, Profe s s o r Shivji, l e a r n e d advoc a t e r e p r e s e n t i n g the appellant under a legal aid scheme o f the F a c u l t y o f L a w of the U n i v e r s i t y o f D a r es Salaam, appl i e d for t h q case to be t r a n s f e r r e d to the H i g h Court o f Zanzibar for h e r r i n g and deci s i o n on the g r o u n d that the appellant lacked the rae-ns to bring witne s s e s from Z a n z i b a r to D a r es Sal^om, and thnt the H i g h Court o f Z a n z i b a r ha-d 00 no arrant j u r i s d i c t i o n to heaa? a n d deter m i n e the crse. In a c o n s idered ruling, the H i g h Court o f the U n i t e d "Republic, Mapig^no, J, rejected the ap p l i c a t i o n and held in affect that the H i g h Court of Zanzibar ha a n o ^urisdic-tion t o heal _ 2 - e l e c t i o n petitions concerning the Parliament of the U n i t e d Republic, It also h e l d th^t the High. Court of the united Republic h a d territorial j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r Zanzibar in Parir.aniont?,ry election caaeS a n d c o u l d © o a s e q u e n t l y move to ?nd sit in Zanz i b a r to h e ? r an election p e t i t i o n s u c h as this one. The appellant was aggri e v e d b y this outcome of hia rpplication, hence thig appeal to this court* .. Profe s s o r Shivji ag~in represented the appellant b e f o r e us, vhe r e a s Mr. Mkude, Ch i e f C o r p o ration Counsel o f the T a n z a n i a Legal Corporation, a p p e a r e d for the first respondent, Mrs, Ngororo, l e a r n e d st-’ te attorney, r e p r e sented the Attorne y - G e n e r a l o f the U n i t e d Republic, who is the second respondent joined in the p e t i t i o n by v i r t u e o f the p r o v i s i o n s o f R u l e 4 o f the Elections (Elections Petition) Rules, 1970* The Attorney-General o f the Revol u t i o n ? r y Government o f Zanz i b a r w a s n o t i f i e d to ap p e a r in these proceedings AMICUS CUR I A E as it was felt that this Covert c o u l d benefit a great deal from his opinion on a matter, s u c h as t h i s case, w h i c h tou c h e s o n a vital interest o f the Zanzibar R e v o l u t i o n a r y Government, U n f o r t u n a t e l y n e i t h e r the Attorne3r-General o f Zanzibar n o r a n y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f his office appeared, -rid no communication concer n i n g the n o n - a p p e a r a n c e was r e c e i v e d by this Court at the time o f hearing the appeal. S i n c e the actual p a r t i e s to the appeal w e r e present o r represented, the Court d e c i d e d to p r o c e e d w i t h the her r i n g o f the appeal. I n his m e m o r a n d u m o f appeal the appellant raises three ..unds o f compl a i n t as follows? 1, The Honourable Judge erred in I nj in h o l d i n g thr»t t h e H i g h Court of Z a n z i b a r h - d no concurrent jurisdiction ”ith tb-’ t o f the H i g h Court of the Un i t e d Republic to he--r and determine this e l e c t i o n petition, 2, The Honour a b l e Jud;je erred in lav? in hol d i n g th~t the H i g h Court o f the U n i t e d Repub l i c had exclusive j u r i s diction to h e ^ r and determine this election petition., 3# The Honourable Judr.;o erred in law in holding that the H i g h Court o f the U n i t e d Republic cruld sit in Zanz i b a r for the p u r p o s e s o f h e a r i n g and determining this election petition. F r o m the proceedings b o t h in this Court and the Court below, it is appar e n t that the first and second grounds o f complaint involve consti t u t i o n a l issues w h i c h -re n o r e complex than those raised in the third ground, M.-/5 For that reason, it isboitor to :’ c-l ’ -itb the l?gt ground first. In dealing w i t h this aspect of the c-rje# t'-.o learned trial judge stnteds ,!F o r m y s e l f I see no legal barr-cat>e th~t can stop the H i g h Court of the Un i t e d Republic to sit in Zanzibar, for t’ ^e pa: pose of try i n g this election petition. In m y opinion it in a sensible inference th.-.t the Lf.—islaturc hich in its proverbial -/isdom, has v e s t e d j u r i s diction to adjudicate upon such matters in the H i g h Court o f the united Republic also c o n c o m i t a n t l y v e s t e d in tb >t iligU Court territorial' j u r i s diction to sit anywhere in the U n i t e d Republic, inclusive o f Zanzibar, w h e n exercising th.it authority. In addition to ttwt, I have *1 - ays assumed that territorial jurisdiction 'invariably coheres to ju r i s diction o v e r the subject-matter o f the legal action". The res p o n d e n t s in this appeal conceded, , nd r i g h t l y so, that the H i g h Court o f the U n i t e d Republic h'-s no territorial jurisdiction o v e r Zanzibnr in elec t i o n cases °nd cannot therefore sit in Zanz i b a r inconnection w i t h this case. V/ith due respect to the le-rned tri~l judge, no sensible inference o f territorial jurisdiction over Zanzibar can be dr a w n from the m e r e fact of v e s t i n g in the H i g h Court, o f the Un i t e d Republic j u r i s diction to h e a r election petitions arising from Zanzibar territory. It is not unoontoon for a Court to be v e s t e d w i t h j u r i s diction o v e r matters without at the same t ime being vested, w i t h juri s d i c t i o n over the terri t o r y on w h i c h the m a t t e r occurs. A good example c-'n be soon in the provisions of section 6(b) of the P enal Code w h i c h bas al’ - y s ve s t e d in the Courts in Tangan y i k a w i t h criminal j urisdiction to try offences comitted a n y die re outsi'e Tanganyika, b y anyone b e l o n g i n g to Tang-nyika. U n d e r this p r o v i s i o n such courts have j u r i s d i c t i o n to t r y a n appropriate offence com!itted in a country like the U n i t e d Kingdom, but it cannot be said eit h e r sens i b l y or legally th-’ t s'lch courts have t e r r i torial j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r the U n i t e d Kingdom. The assump t i o n m- de b y the l e a r n e d trial judge that j u r i s diction over a subject mat,ter coheres v/ith territorial j u r i s d i c t i o n is not correct. One has o n l y to look at all t h e Courts, inclu d i n g the ITigh Court o f the United Republic, to find tb-t every Court es t a b l i s h e d in the United Republic, Vrs its territorial jurisdiction p r o v i d e d for b y statute*. This is the c-^ne in respect of m-~ gist rates' Courts under the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1 9 63 well as the Magistr-t-es* Courts Act, 1984, ,../4 4 - It is the same for the H i g h Court of the United Republic under the T a n g a n y i k a Order in Council, 1920 r e a d toge t h e r w i t h the Tanganyika (Constitution) O r d e r i n Council I 96I c.nrt t ’e Judicature and Ap p l i c a t i o n o f Laws O r d i nance Cap, 455 * U n d e r section 17 and 20 o f the Tangan y i k a Order in Council, 1920 it was c l e a r l y prov i d e d th~t the H i g h C,>urt thus established had j u r i s diction over the entire terri t o r y o f Tanganyika* There was no •derogation 1 o f territorial jur i s d i c t i o n u n d e r the Tanganyika (Constitution) Or d e r in Council, I96I w h i c h r e p e a l e d and repla.ced the O r d e r in Council o f 1920. As for the Court of Appeal o f Tanzania, its territ.:ri~l jurisdiction is the same as that of the H i g h Court o f the U n i t e d Repu b l i c as veil as that of the H i g h Court of Z a n z i b a r b y virtue o f the provisions of Section 3(2; o f the Appellate juri s d i c t i o n Act 1979 and the First Schedule to the Constitution o f the Uni t e d R e p u b l i c w h i c h lists the Court o f Apperl as one of the "U n i o n M a t t e r s ”. There is thus no d ubt t the l o - m e d trial judge erred in l ? w in h o l d i n g as he did th*t the H i g h Court of the U n i t e d Republic has territorial juri s d i c t i o n to hear and determine P a r l i amentary election petitions o r i g i n a t i n g from Zanzibar, This means th°t in hearing an election peti t i o n o r i g i n a t i n g from Zanzibar, The High Court o f the United Republic must sit in T a n z a n i a Mainland. One no-' cornea to the first and second grounds ox the m e m o r a n d u m of T h e y a re inter linked and for i>>t re- son, it is bet t e r to c -insider them together. P r o f e a s o r Sh i v j i has submitted before us that the H i g h Court o f the U n i t e d Republic does not h-ve exclusive original j u r i sdiction to h e a r and determine an election petition, such as this one, but h'-s concurrent j u r i s d i c t i o n w i t h the H i g h Court of .Zanzibar, P r o f e s s o r Shivji advances two m a i n argum e n t s in support of his submission* Fir s t l y he contends in effect that since the Psrli'inent of the Uni t e d Republic and P a r l i a m e n t a r y e l e c t i o n s thereto are not listed -mong 'Union matters' in the First Schedule to the C o n s t i t u t i o n of the United Republic, the R e v o l u t i o n a r y Government o f Zanzibar is not precluded from exercising j u r i s diction over the ma t t e r by h a v i n g the relevant elections petition heard ajnd determined by its H i g h Court. Secondly, **f/5 - 5 - ho argues in e : Cect th-^t since the Elections Act, 1905 was enacted b y the Parli-ment o f the United Republic and wos made by the same applicable "thoufthout the Un i t e d Republic o f T a n z a n i a 11 b y virtue of sec t i o n 1(3^ of" the Act, and since th-t Act p rovides under section 110(l) that "every e l e c t i o n p e t i t i o n sh=ll be tried by the H i g h C o u r t ” without qu^lifiction, t h e n the H i g h Court of Zanzib r is vested with jurisdiction conc u r r e n t l y w i t h the H i g h Court of the Un i t e d Republic by virtue o f the provisions of Article 115(2) ofthe C o n s t i t u t i o n of the U n i t e d Republic w h i c h provides in effect th ts "Subject to this Constitution and to any Inw enacted by the Parliament, where jurisdiction iscinferred on a H i g h Court by a law of the Parliament of the U n i t e d Republic w h i c h applies to Zar.^ib'-r, the jurisdiction of the H i g h Court of Z a n z i b a r shrll be c incurrent w i t h tb~t of the H i g h Court of the U n i t e d R e p u b l i c ”, It is P r o f os w r S h i v j i 1s opinion th~t the proviso c o n t a i n e d in Article H 5 ( l ) to the e feet th'-t "subject to Article 83 and 116 o f this Constitution, the High Court o f Zanzi b a r shall h^ve such jurisdiction a,s m a y be conferred u n d e r a n y 1 - w in force in Zanzibar" does not preclude the High Court o f Z a n z i b a r from he - ing and determining such election c~ses, but precludes only the ensctment of legisl vkion in Zanzibar ves t i n g in the High Court of Z a n z i b a r exclusive jurisdiction to he-'r election cases concer n i n g Parliamentary elect i o n s to the Parliament o f the United Republic. In conclusion, it ig h i s c o n t e n t i o n that the Courts should e n s t r u e the provisions o f the C o n s t i t u t i o n in k e e p i n g w i t h the principlo of duality o" the United R e p u b l i c p r o v i d i n g for m a tters w h i c h r-re w i t h i n the exclusive domain or j u r i s diction o f the R e v o l u t i o n ^ r y Government of Zanzibar on the one liand and the Government of'the Un i t e d Republic o n the other hand, and for matters which ere wi t h i n the concurrent c o m p e t e n c y of both two governments, Mr, Hkude, lea r n e d counsel for the first respondent submi t t e d on the o t h e r hand quite firmly to the effect th^t the H i g h Court of the U n i t e d R e p u b l i c is ves t e d w i t h exclusive ori-.inal jurisdiction to h e a r and determine e l e c t i o n petitions by Article 83(l) o f the C o n s t itution w h i c h provides in effect thnts . . ./6 - 6 - "(l) A n y nr t her for decision ^s to whe t h e r - (a) a n y pe r s o n has been v a l i d l y elected or appointed as a m e m b e r o f the National Assembly; or (b'' a n y me m b e r of the National Assembly has ce a s e d to be a m e m b e r and his seat has become vacant shall be instituted and determined in the H i g h Court o f the Un i t e d Repu b l i c at first instance" It is part o f Hr. M k u d e ’ s c o n t e n t i o n that alth o u g h the Elect i o n s Act, 1985 describes the forum v e s t e d w i t h jurisdiction b y refer r i n g to it simply as "the H i g h Court",' tLat let has to be read together w i t h Article 8 3 (l) of the C o n s t i t u t i o n o f the Uni t e d Republic, Mrs, Ngororo on her part has submitted in effect that the relevant p r o v i s i o n s of the C o n s t i t u t i o n and the law cannot be construpd to co n f e r o n the H i g h Court o f Zanz i b a r jurisdiction to hear and ' .termine election petitions s u c h as this w h i c h is the subject o f this case, bee-use h i s t o r i c a l l y the p r o v i s i o n s o f Article 115(2) of the Con s t i t u t i o n o f the United Republic e x i s t e d in the interim C o n s t i t u t i o n o f the Un i t e d Republic o f 19^5 as sec t i o n 63(2 ) l o n g before a n y elections were contemplated in Zanzibar, Mrs, Ngororo c o u l d as well have refe r r e d also to the provisions of section 125 o- the El e c t i o n s Act, 1970 w h i c h v e s t e d jurisdiction to h e a r and determine election pe t i t i o n s in the H i g h Court w h e n elections were still not yet cont e m p l a t e d in Zanzibar, The p r o v isions of section 125 o f the Elections Act 1970 are r e p r o d u c e d as section 110 o f the current Elections o t 1935 w h i c h r e p e a l e d a n d r e p l a c e d the vrvtlior’ . legislation on the matter. It is h e r conten t i o n that the H i g h Court o f Z a n z i b a r h s d no jurisdiction to he-r and determine election petit i o n s ei t h e r in 19 6 5 , o r 1970 and no subsequent l e g i s lation has been e n a c t e d s p e c i f i c a l l y to con Per jurisdiction thereafter, I propose to deal ' ith Mrs, N g o r o r o ’ s submissions first. With . ' respect there is a fundamental flaw in her position. The provisions o f sect i o n 63(2 ) faf the I n t e r i m •Constitution of 19 ^ 5*w h i c h were s u b s t a n t i a l l y r e p r o d u c e d as Art i c l e 115(2) of the current C o n s t itution o f ‘ the United Repu b l i c , w e r e not r e s t r i c t e d to the situa t i o n as it existed in the Un i t e d Republic in I 965 but app l i e d to the future as well. This is apparent from the wor d i n g of that s u b - s e c t i o n w h i c h then read as follows? - 7 - H (2) Subject to this Cons t i t u t i o n and to any express provi s i o n of an Act o f Parliament, -here jurisdiction is confe r r e d o n a H i g h Court b y a lew o f the Parliament o f the U n i t e d R epu b l i c w h i c h applies to, o r a. l o w in force in Ta n g a n y i k a w h i c h is extended to, Zanzibar, the jur i s d i c t i o n o f the High. Court o f Zanz i b a r shall be concurrent w i t h that o f the H i g h Court o f the Un i t e d R e p u b l i c , ” C l e a r l y these provisions were intended to cover a n y exist i n g o r future " l a w o f the Parluament of the Un i t e d Repu b l i c w h i c h applies to, o r a l a w in force in T a n g a n y i k a w h i c h is extended to, Zanz i b a r ’ '1. In ot h e r words these pr o v i s i o n s w o u j d c o v e r a l a w s u c h as the Elections Act 1985 w h ic h ig extended to Z a n z i b a r unless it c r n be s-’ id that these provisions no longer existed in the C o n s t i t u t i o n at the tine the Elections Act 1985 was enac t e d b y the P a r l i a m e n t of the U n i t e d Republic, V/hen the Int e r i m C o n s t i t u t i o n o f 19^5 ce' sed to exist, these provisions were retai n e d even if allowance is nr'de for c h a n g e s in the v o c a b u l a r y o c c a s s i o n e d by the use o f the K i s w a h i l i lang u a g e to express the C o n s t i t u t i o n o f the Un i t e d Republic for the first time in the C o n s t i t u t i o n o f 1977 w h i c h replaced the interim one o f 1965V One has o n l y to l o o k at Article 67 of the 1977 c o n s titution to find them. There t h e y r e m - i n e d and w e r e not affe c t e d b y the major constituti--''nal changes effected by the F i f t h C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Amendment Act No, 15 of 1984# W i t h the pub l i c a t i o n o f the c o n s o l i d a t e d v e r s i o n o f the Con s t i t u t i o n in 1985* these provis i o n s appe a r e d as Arti c l e 115(2), They were thus in o p e r ation w h e n the Elect i o n s Act, 1985 w a s e n a c t e d and exten d e d to Zanzibar by the Parliament o f the U n i t e d Republic, But as it shall be d emo n s t r a t e d hereafter, the Elec t i o n Act 1985 has to be re^.d t o g e t h e r with Article 03 o f the C o n s titution and that f^ct p r e c l u d e s the H i g h Court o f Zs*izibar from acqui r i n g j u r i s diction c o n c u r r e n t l y w i t h the H i g h Court o f the U n i t e d Republic, It is a p p r o priate at this stage to de^l w i t h one o f the limbo o f Professor S h i v j i ’ s arguments. Un d o u b t e d l y one o f the m a j o r changes e f f e c t e d b y the First Consti t u t i o n a l .amendment Act, 1979 was the establishment o f the Court o f Appeal o f Tanzania, consequent upon the break up o f the East A f r i c a n Community, The Court o f Appeal was ves t e d w i t h jurisdiction to h e « r ap peals f r o m the H i g h Court of the Un i t e d Republic in matters including elect i o n petitions. Until then, the H i g h Court o f the United Repu b l i c was what was e x p r e s s l y stated in Article 38 o f the 1977 Cons t i t u t i o n ao "ndiyo pekee yenye * • • •/8 majnlaka ya k u s i k i l i z a na ku^-mua", That meant in effect oxclusivc and final jurisdiction.. Thero wore no app^-ls in election p e t i t i o n cases eit h e r to the Court of Appeal o f East Africa o r any o t h e r court. W i t h the establishment o f the Court of Appeal of Tanzania w i t h appellate j u r i s diction in e l e c t i o n matters, the provisions of Article 38 of the 1977 C o n s t i t u t i o n had to be a m e n d e d and were actua l l y amended in 1979 firstly, b y spe c i f i c a l l y s t a t i n g u n d e r a n e w Article 38(3) that appeals in elect i o n roabters w o u l d lie to the Court of Appeal against the: decision o f the Ilig-h Court o f the U n i t e d Republic,;.and secon d l y by omit t i n g the words "pekee" and "ku - m u a ” w h i c h had ex p r e s s e d the exclusiveness and finality o f the H i g h Court j u r i sdiction in e l e c t i o n cases, Ifapifpno, J, in dealing w i t h these changes stated? "I take the v i e w tlT-t the ~ l t e i a t i o n of the language in the 1979 amendment did not signify any departure from the essence o f the provi s i o n as it p r e v i o u s l y stood. It is not uncommon* There ore several instances to be found in the statute b o o k o f the legislature devi ting from language p r e v i o u s l y u s e d for the purpose of conveying a certain m e a n i n g without the r e b y i ntending to dep-rt from that meaning", V/hile this court should be slow to differ about information given on the state of the st-tute book b y one of the most exp e r i e n c e d end senior judges o f the H i g h Court of the U n i t e d Republic, one is bo u n d to state w i t h respect that in the present instance the alteration in the language used in the p r o v i s i o n s of the relevant article signified a departure in meaning. But what is this mesning? Accor d i n g to P r o f essor Shivji, th-t change confe r r e d concurrent jurisdiction o n the H i g h Court o f Zanzibar by remo v i n g the exclu s i v e jur i s d i c t i o n o f the H i g h Court o f the Un i t e d Republic, W i t h due respect to P r o f e s s o r Shivji, his c o n t e n t i o n cannot be correct. concerning It is app-rent th-t the a m e n d m e n t s L the jur i s d i c t i o n of the H i g h Court of the U n i t e d Repub l i c were t w o “pronged. Firstly, the amendments r e m o v e d the e x c l u siveness and fin-lit;; of jurisdiction ve s t e d in the H i g h Court o f the U n i t e d R e p u b l i c 5 and s e c n d l ^ they opened a w a y by spe c i f i c a l l y p r o v i d i n g u n d e r Article 83(3) for a p c l to the Court o f Appeal o f Tanzania, If it w a s intended th~t there should also be a w a v opened for -c-ncurrent ju r i s d i c t i o n in the High Court of Zanzibar it w o u l d also b?ve b e e n s i m i l a r l y - 9 - pr o v i d e d sp e c i f .cally therein. It is inconceivable that Parliament w o u l d h a v e c h o s e n instead to effect such a m a j o r change almest i n c i d entally by l e a v i n g it to the Courts to puzzle it out. In a n y c-'se, the ^ l e c tions Act, 1985 w a s enacted by the Parliament of the U n i t e d Repu b l i c u n d e r the enabling provisions o f Article 83. This m e a n s that the Act h->s to be r e a d together w i t h the provisions o f Art i c l e 8 % S i n c e the Court v e s t e d w i t h original jurisdiction u n d e r Article 83 is s p e c i f i e d to be the H i g h Court o f the U n i t e d Republic of Tanzania, it must fo l l o w th^t "the H i g h Court" described in the Elections Act, 1985 as ha v i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n to h e a r a n d determine election petitions cannot be other than that speci f i e d under Article 83* Thus one is led to the inevitable c o n c l u s i o n but for different reasons, that the learned trial judge was correct in h o l d i n g that the High Court o f the U n i t e d Republic has exclusive original j u r i s d i c t i o n to h e - r and determine election petitions such as the present one. However, as alr e a d y f .und, the H i g h Court of the U n i t e d Republic o f T a n z a n i a has no territorial j u r i sdiction o v e r Zanz i b a r and cannot therefore sit there to h e o r this o r similar election petition. It must sit o n the mainland. This legal posi t i o n does not derogate in any w a y from the princ i p l e o f d u a l i t y o f the U n i t e d Republic o f Tanzania, but is a m a n i f e s t a t i o n o f one o f the three dimensions o r ca^-'-acteristics o f that duality. It is apparent f rom the basic structure o r scheme of the Cons t i t u t i o n o f the U n i t e d R e p u b l i c th-t these dimensio ns relate firstly, to mat t e r s w h i c h c o n c e r n e x c l u s i v e l y that a r e a w h i c h before the U n i o n constituted what was then k n o w n as Tanganyika, -and is p r e s ently refe r r e d to u n d e r the C o n s t i t u t i o n as T a n z a n i a Mainland. These matters under the schet'.e of the C o n s t i t u t i o n fall u n d e r the exclusive do m a i n o f the Government o f the U n i t e d Republic, The R e v o l u t i o n a r y Government of Zanzi b a r has no jurisdiction over these matters. Secondly, there are matters w h i c h concern e x c l u s i v e l y the o t h e r side of the Union, that is, Zanzibar. C l e a r l y these mat t e r s fall w i t h i n the exclusive d o m a i n o f the R e v o l u t i o n a r y Government of Zanzibar, The Government of the U n i t e d R e p u b l i c has no jurisdiction w h a t s o e v e r over s u c h matters. /10 - 10 - Thirdly, there are the mat t e r s w h i c h con c e r n b o t h sides of the U n i o n — tnat is, t h e y con c e r n Tanzani- M a i n l a n d as well ps Zanzibar, Accor d i n g to the basic scheme o r structure o f t h e C o nstitution o f the U n i t e d Republic, these m a t t e r s appe r to be dec It w i t h in triple vayss Onej S o n o of these ratters of common concern are listed in the First S che d u l e to the Constitution, H i s t o r i c a l l y this list bas not stood still but has g r a d u a l l y increased. The latest inc usion in the list is the Court o f A ppeal o f Tanzania, This trend is p r o b a b l y an indie-tion of a heal t h y g r o w i n g confidence and. trust b e t w e e n the people and leadership o n b o t h sides o f the Union, These rnv.tters c->ntained in the First Schedule fall w i t h i n the e x c l u s i v e do m a i n o f the Government of the Un i t e d Repu b l i c as p r o v i d e d under A rti c l e s 4 and 64 o f the Constitution, Second} there -ire other matters o f concern both to Z a n z i b a r and T a n z a n i a M a i n l a n d and w h i c h ^re not listed in the First Schedule but are s p e c i f i c a l l y prov i d e d for under the C o n s t itution o f the United Republic, S u c h is the right o f audience ot the Attorney-General o f the U n i t e d Repu b l i c in the courts o f the United Republic, A l t h o u g h Mapigano, J, in his ruling w a s o f the v i e w th-t the A t t o m e y - G e n e r o 1 o f the Uni t e d Repu b l i c as d e f i n e d u n d e r Article 15 1 o f the C o n s t itution had no right o f audience in the courts o f the R e v o l u t i o n a r y Government of Z?msib"r, that v i e w cannot be correct. Arti c l e 59(4) cle - r l y provides in Kiovahilis "Katikp k u t e k e l e z a kprsi n~ shughuli ke kv/a mu j i b u w a ib?ra hii, Mwanasherip M k u u atakuwa n a haki ya kuhudhuria n a k usikilizva lc~tika Mahalcama zote k- tika Jpmhuri y a M u u n g a n o ” It is a b u n d a n t l y evident that the right of audience of the A t t o r n e y - General o f the Uni t e d Republic extends to all the courts throughout the U n i t e d Republic, w h i c h consists of Tanzania M a in l a n d and Zanzibar. The o t h e r m a t t e r w h i c h is spec i f i c a l l y prov i d e d for under the C o n s t i t u t i o n and v/hich concerns b o t h sides o f the union is the jur i s d i c t i o n to h e a r nnd determine election petition,' cases. This m a t t e r is the root o f the present case. As alre- -v demonstrated this jurisdiction is v e s t e d in the H i g h Court o f the Un i t e d Republic. - 1-1 - There is also the Permanent C o m m i s s i o n of E n q u i r y established and r e g u l a t e d under Articles 129, 130 and 131* So is the Consti t u t i o n a l Court e s t a b l i s h e d and r e g u l a t e d by Articles 125, 127 and 128, B o t h have j u r i s d i c t i o n throughout the Uni t e d Republic although they are not listed in the First Schedule to the Constitution, Ano t h e r one is the L e a d e r s h i p Code Commi t t e e est a b l i s h e d and regal-bed under Article 132 o f the Constitution, Al t h o u g h u n d e r Article 123 of the C o n s t itution o f Z a n z i b a r there are p r o v i s i o n s r e c o g n i z i n g the Permanent Commis s i o n of Enquiry, the L e a d e r s h i p Court Code Commi t t e e and the O&Odtitut'lOfiali £ .. ; as e s t a b lished u n d e r the U n i t e d R e p u b l i c Constitution, it is doubtful whe t h e r the absence o f the relevant pr o v i s i o n s under the Con s t i t u t i o n o f Zanzibar wo u l d affect the v a l i d i t y o f these institutions, since the C o n s t itution o f the United Repu b l i c u n d e r w h i c h t h e y are es t a b l i s h e d is a u n i o n m a t t e r listed under the First Schedule to the U n i o n Constitution* O t h e r mat t e r s w h i c h are s p e c i f i c a l l y provided for under the C o n s t i t u t i o n of the U n i t e d Republic are certain legislations of the Parliament o f the U n i t e d Republic w h i c h are enacted in accordance w i t h the provis i o n s o f Art i c l e 64(4 ). The Elections Act, 1935 w h i c h applies throughout the U n i t e d R e p u b l i c o f Tanz a n i a appears to be one such leg i s l a t i o n enacted under A r t i c l e 64(4 )(a). Und o u b t e d l y this l e g i s lation does not con c e r n a union m a t t e r li s t e d u n d e r the First Schedule to the U n i o n C o n s t i t u t i o n and w o u l d a p p e a r to infringe the provisions of Article 7S(l) of the C o n s t i t u t i o n of Z a n z i b a r w h i c h provides in e 'feet th-t, "All legislative powers in Z a n z i b a r o v e r all n o n - u n i o n matters is vested in the House of Representatives", P r o f e s s o r Shivji has expressed the opinion, th o u g h he did not w i s h to press it, that the Elect i o n s Act, 19^-5 and similar legislations exte n d e d to Z a n z i b a r on non—un i o n matt e r s require the a d o p t i o n or s i m i l a r ac t i o n by compe t e n t au t h o r i t i e s o f the Zanzibar R e v o l u t i o n a r y Government to give s u c h legi s l a t i o n s legal force or vali d i t y in Zanzibar, Fo r t u n a t e l y there is no n e e d for this Court to m a k e s. decision on this point in this case since the v a l i d i t y o-f the E l e c t i o n s Act, 1985 in so far as it opexates in Zanzibar, ,,,,/l2 - 12 h as not b e e n m a d e an issue in this c-se« The m a t t e r lias to await an ap p r o p r i a t e 0-30', T h i r d and l^stlyj the C o n s t i t u t i o n o f the U n i t e d Republic does not contain p r o v isions for dealing w i t h every non-u n i o n m a t t e r w h i c h concerns b o t h sides o f the Union, S u c h are the fishing activities in the territorial w a t e r s o f Tanz a n i a in the Indian Ocea nj Such, and und o u b t e d l y there m a y be m a n y o t h e r matt e r s o f com m o n concern, ?re not yet s p e c i fically p r o v i d e d for un d e r the C o n s t i t u t i o n o f the U n i t e d Repub l i c or th^-t of Zanzibar, These are m a t t e r s w h i c h in the course of time, as the people of Tanzania continue to m a t u r e in their nationhood, w i M find their place either as union m a t t e r s l i s t e d in the First Sche d u l e to the C o n s t itution or as matters spe c i f i c a l l y pr o v i d e d elsewhere under the C o n s t i t u t i o n o f the U n i t e d Republic and that o f Zanzibar, F o r the moment, it has b e e n s u f f i ciently demonstrated, I hope, that the exclu s i v e oriain->l j u r i s diction o f the H i g h Court o f the U n i t e d Repu b l i c in h e a r i n g 0m l d e t e r m i n i n g election petitions inrespect of P a r l i a m e n t a r y e lections to the National A s s e m b l y is in k e e p i n g w i t h the basic structure of t he C o n s t i t u t i o n of the U n i t e d R epu b l i c of Tanzania, In the final analysis t h e r e f o r e this appeal p a r t i a l l y succeeds on the third ground o f the m e m o r a n d u m o f appeal but fails and is dismissed on the first and second grounds. In the light o f this outcome, and since the appellant is o n leg®! aid, no o r d e r as to costs will be m-de, Since m y learned brothers Mustafa, J.A. a n d Omar, J.A, agree w i t h me, it is o r d e r e d accordingly. F. L. NYALALI C H I E F J U S T Ir .Cc Ei I c e r t i f y th^t this is a true c o p y o f the original. - 13 - Based, on such ‘ 'assumptions’ 1 he arrived at the figure of 117# He stat§d, in v i e w of the m a j o r i t y of 370 in favour of the 1st respondent, even if the 117 votes wore taken into account, that w o u l d not have affe c t e d the results. Mr. Rutash o b y a had, not unnaturally, tried to r e l y on these "assumptions", as if they were findings of fact. We venture to t h i n k that perhaps the trial judge had meant that if • he was wrong on certain issues, t h e n the appellant should have had the advantage of 117 votes, and even then, the election results would not have been A. K U S T A F A J U S T I C E OP APPEAL A. Mo A. OMAR J U S T I C E O P AP P E A L D. P. MAPIGANO X Ag. J U S T I C E OF APP E A L I; c e r t i f y that-.this is a true copy o f the original. V' Y -____ \ •< /?- ( J . H. I-EOFFE) D.iilPUTY REGISTRAR