JOHN THADEUS CASE NEW

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (MAIN REGISTRY) AT DAR ES SALAAM) MISC. CAUSE NO. 000027419/2023 OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR ORDERS OF M ANDAM US AND

CERTIO RARI AND IN THE MATTER TO CHALLENGE THE DECISION OF THE 1st RESPONDENT DENYING THE APPLICANT'S RIGHT TO HAVE HIS ACADEMIC CERTIFICATE AS BEING ARBITRARY, UNFAIR AND IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF

NATURAL JUSTICE

BETWEEN JOHN B. THADEUS................................................................... APPLICANT

VERSUS NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORT............................. 1st RESPONDENT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL................................................. 2nd RESPONDENT

RULING 04/3/2024 & 25/3/2023 MANYANDA, J.: The Applicant is seeking for an order of Certiorari and Mandamus. The application is made under section 17(2) of the Law Reform (Fatal Accidents and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, [Cap. 310 R, E. 2019] and Rules 4 and 8(1) (a) and (b) of the Law of Reform (Fatal Accidents and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Judicial Review Procedures and Fees) Rules 2014, GN No. 324 of 2014, hereafter the Rules and Section 2(3) of the Judicature and Application of Laws Act, [Cap. 358 R. E. 2019]. The Applicant specifically in the Chamber Summons seeks for the following reliefs: - 1. That, this Honourable Court be pleased to grant order of certiorari to quash and annul the decision made by the 1st Respondent denying the Applicant to have his Original Diploma Certificates and Academic Transcripts and nullifying NTA Level 6 Examination Results as well as discontinuing the Applicant from studies, ON THE GROUNDS: - a) That the decision of the 1st Respondent violated the principle of natural justice as the Applicant was not given the right to be heard or to make his defence. b) That, the decision made by the 1st Respondent was based on false allegations against the Applicant.

2. That, the Honourable Court be pleased to grant order of Mandamus to compel the 1st Respondent to provide the Applicant his Original Diploma Certificates and Academic Transcripts. ON THE GROUNDS: - a) That, the allegations of examination irregularity against the Applicant were false. b) That, the Applicant faithfully conducted his examination without -^ aTiy "examination irregularity of which he was qualified to have his name among the Graduands' Book for Academic Year 2020/2021, Academic Clearance Form from the 1st Respondent and Award Verification Number (AVN) from the National Council for Technical Education (NACTE) 3. That, costs of this application to be on the Respondent. The application is supported by a statement of the claim and the affidavit sworn by John B. Thadeus, the Applicant. It is opposed by the Respondents through their joint reply statement and counter affidavit sworn by Fredrick Erneus Mwesigwa, the 1st Respondent's Principal Officer and Head of Legal Service. The brief material facts of this matter are that, the applicant was a diploma student in mechanical engineering of the 1st Respondent, class of 2018/2019 with Registration No. NIT/BCME/2018/675. In 2021 the Applicant was issued with a Statement of Results after paying the requisite fee while waiting for his Diploma Certificate and Academic Transcript. After release of certificates in February, 2022,

the Applicant made follow ups to collect his Original Diploma Certificates and Academic Transcripts as he was not issued with any. Surprisingly, the Applicant was informed by the 1st Respondent via a letter with Ref. No. NIT/BCM E/2018/675 dated 06/05/2022 that his certificates were upheld due to allegations of committing examination irregularities when he was sitting for a test of Module ITT 06212T - Basic Computer Programming in the second Semester of the Academic Year 2020/2021. That the'Examination Board of which meeting was held on 19th November, 2021 approved recommendations of the Standing Examinations Irregularities Committee . for nullification and his discontinuation from studies based on commission of examination irregularity. He became unhappy with that reply which left him under shock and psychological torture as the said information was new and surprise to him after_such_aJongJapsejDfJime had since he sat for that examination and never been called or heard by the Examination Board concerning the said allegation's. That, the decision of the 1st Respondent against the Applicant was against the principle of natural justice as the Applicant was not given the Page 4 of 26 right to be heard or make his defence against the said allegations. Aggrieved ,by the said 1st Respondent's decision, the Applicant filed Miscellaneous Civil Cause -No. 44-of-2023 for application for

leave to file - orders of certiorari and mandamus which was granted by this Court allowing him to. file judicial review. During oral hearing of this application, the applicant was unrepresented while the Respondents, were ..represented by Ms. Narindwa Sekimanga, Senior State Attorney. The Applicankadopted: his.-Affidavit, StatementrofjFactsiand-theireliefs sought in Chamber Summons.. Then, he^werit .on submitting in support of grounds in Paragraph'2(a) (i) and (ii) and 2(b)(i) and (ii) of the Statement of Facts stating that he accomplished his examinations without any exams irregularity, and he obtained the Statement of Results which was signed by authorised person, the same was marked "Al". Then he was given an Award Verification Number (AVN) from the National Council for Technical Education (NACTE) marked "A2". The Applicant further submitted, that, he was admitted to the Dar es Salaam Institute of Technology (D1T) for a degree in engineering as shown in "A3" which is the admission letter and fee structure. The Applicant wrote a letter referred as ”A4" requesting for his certificate but, the NIT through'letter dated 06/05/2022 replied him that his certificate was nullified, as exhibited by "A5". Then, Applicant resorted to the National Council for Technical Education (NACTE) for assistance without answer. The Applicant went on submitting that he-obtained* students

identity card with Registration No. NIT/BCM E/2018675, .which.. expired on 26/10/2021 marked "A7". In regard to ground 2(a) (i) of the Statement of facts, his submission was that he was not given the right to be heard and defend in that he was not availed with- a' charge Shlefan'd "fie 'was'Tiot summoned to appear'before-the Department-Examination-Gommitteeror-the Standing Examination Irregularities Committee and Examination Board. Therefore, the Applicant prayed for the 1st Respondent's decision be nullified. The Applicant opined that it is a position of the law that decisions affecting-rights-of persons must have backing up of sound reasons. To bolster his point/' he^eited^the case-:ofeSanai-:Miirumbe%vs=Miihere Chacha [1990] TLR 54. Then the Applicant submitted on ground 2(a) (ii) and 2(b)(i) of the Statement of Facts that the Prospectus of the NIT at pages 207 and 208 provides for procedure of handling examinations irregularities. He was of Page 6 of-26 the view that the 'same was not followed. Further he stated that at pages 197 and 198 of the same Prospectus, it is provided for responsibilities of-Rectors. The Applicant -insisted that the allegations, against him. are .wrong because first, there was no evidence or affidavit'of lecturers who purport to haverapprehend the hirTKWitlra mobile:phone~in” the examination -room. Second,-there :is no evidence-or affidavit from any

student or security guard testifying that he ran away from the examination room with the zsaid phone. Third,-.there is-no~evidence or affidavit from the personSrwhb”presided?oveK0tewere=in‘ attendanGe=in?thewieetingswhich: .deliberatedrthe allegationsragainst him. He_bolstered his. point, with, a decision in the case of Shabibu Mruma vs. Mzumbe University and Another, Misc. Civil Cause No. 20 of 2018 (unreported), but, did not supply any copy to the court. The Applicant-rested' “his submissions -praying^this^application'-itcr be granted. In reply, Ms. Sekimanga adopted the counter affidavit and the reply to statement of facts and submitted against ground 2(a) (i) of the Statement of Facts arguing that the Applicant was given opportunity to defend himself. She clarified that, the Applicant was formerly charged and served with the charge sheet dated 12/08/2021 that contained all the allegations against him per annexure -NIT-1- Collectively to the counter-affidavit.=-Xhen,.-the-Applicant filed-his reply-to the-charge-sheet dated 17/08/2021 annexed as NIT-1 Collectively. Then, the Applicant was summonedto appear^before the Standing Examination Irregularities Committee- whereas, he appeared, and. was. heard .accordingly, on. 19/08/2021 per the Committee Minutes. NIT-2, Collectively. Afterwards,,, the Applicant was notified by the Rector one Richard B. Galilava that he was suspended

by the Standing Examination Irregularity Committee via a letter dated 11/10/2021, to which he signed in a dispatch book, per annexure NIT-3 Collectively. The findings of the said Standing Examination Irregularities Committee were approved by the Examination Board and the Applicant was discontinued from studies The State Attorney submitted that it was the Applicant who disobeyed the suspension and continued to attend the classes at his own peril. Therefore, the Applicant was not issued with Certificate of Completion because his results were nullified by the NIT Examination Board and discontinued from studies per Regulation 7.6.2 of the Examination Regulations of 2018 which are made under section 11(d) of the National Institute of Transport Act, [Cap. 187 R. E. 2019]. He was found with a mobile phone which was a prohibited material in examination rooms and he ran away with it in destruction of evidence. The finding"of^ the "Exarhinatidn^rrregularitieT' Committee" which deliberated by finding the Applicant guilty of the disciplinary offences and suspended: him pending Examination-Board decision were forwarded to-the^Examination-Boardiwhich-confirmefl-tfie^ame-a'nd discontinued the Applicant from-studies he was notified about the discontinuation through a letter dated 23/11/2021 which was handed o him by a dispatch. He was also required to hand back all.the properties, of the

NIT including identity card. Ms.- Sekimanga-eoncluded-that—the Applicant—was-rgiven--ample of opportunity to be heard and defend. Coming to ground number 2(a) (ii) and 2(b) (i) Ms. Sekimanga submitted that there is enough evidence that the Applicant misconducted^himself againstthe Examination Regulations. 'That; when the Appiicant-f\wasdbrmerly£iehargediin^his^defenGe#via=letteD=dated: 17/08/2021eonceded to have been present in the examination room, he gave the reasons for leaving the examination room as being fear of being apprehended due to expiry of his identification card. This reason was found by the Standing Examination Irregularities Committee to be -irrelevant. At the meeting, according to the rninutes_of the Standing Examination Irregularities Committee dated 19/08/2021, the Applicant conceded-that- he left, the-examination room because he conducted himself in violation of the Examination Regulations. Ms.- Sekimanga;xoncluding~in .:this:-area> submitted thatsthe:. Applicant appearedbefore=the^Standing-Examination-lJtegularities-Committee, which- was a fact-finding, h e ' was- not entitled--to . attend “at ■the Examination Board where the findings of the Committee were only forwardedforBoardapproval; As regard to the Examination "Board decision which aggrieved the Applicant;_was just an approving final decision, the basic decision was already found and made by the

Committee at which the Applicant was given opportunity to be heard. On ground 2(b) (ii) of the Statement of Facts, Ms. Sekimanga for the Respondents^submitted thafhis name appeared in the Graduands' Book, but does’ ricit mean or qualify him to be a proper graduands because he was already suspended and-ultimately, disqualified: fromistudies by the time the said Graduands' Book was published, and he knew about. Therefore, his name was wrongly included in the said Graduands' Book. As regard'to the Clearance- Form r Statement o fTResult and Award Verification-Number, Ms. Sekimanga submitted that the Applicant's name was wrongly^-printed because-he-J/vasalready^ suspended—and disqualified. Equally she submitted that the Statement of Results was wronglyzgiven_on 30/08/2021-but-rthe“ deliberations for-“his suspension were~ made;-on 19/08/2021 :and-^was^served -with -the-- suspension, deliberations: on. ll'/10/2021“ for; his -suspensionrfrom^studies:~The Examination Board confirmed the nullified and discontinued the Applicant-:from-stffdies:.Thereiforepin"her~view;-r-it-was_the2Examination Board thafedecidedithe .fate:ofcthe=AppliGant;following?faGt=findings and recommendations.by the Standing Examination-Irregularities Committee made on 19/08/2021. As regard to act of the Applicant applying for studies at the Dar es Salaam Institute of Technology (DU), Ms. Sekimanga submitted

that, the Applicant applied to the D U while knowing that he was discontinued from NIT studies, via a letter dated 06/05/2022 after his inquiry for Certificate?of Results^ HisHetter to'the^NACTE wasgusfcan^fterthought. As regard-to the_ Identity. Card, she submitted that , he-is unlawfully holding the same. Page 11 of 26- In respect' of Tthe_prayers'in"the Ghamber Summons, she~submitted as follows: - In prayer 2, this Court cannot force' the NIT to award a student with a certificate_he does not qualify, it is only the Institute itself and upon proper qualifications, therefore, this Court" has no pow erto grant this prayer;-As-regard :to costs," she prayed-this Court to grant, the costs to the Respondents,-after dismissing the application-whichhas-no merit. In rejoinder, the Applicant, responded that he did not proceed with studies while suspendied Or discontinued," but he proceeded his"studies lawfully because he was not notified to that effect. The suspension letter is dated 11/10/2021 and Statement of Result--is-dated-30/08/2021, therefore, it is not true that he continued with studies after been suspended. He finished all his examinations, before the alleged suspension letter. Moreover>--hisHetter--requesting=forj 'Gertifieate=of“ Completion dated 20/04/202r,was-repliedrOn'06/05/2022ryethe-wasnot‘informedabout nullification-of his results before-his request,:otherwise,r

they~could:have said in their letter that he was suspended when replying to him. The applicant further replied that in accordance with dispatch book shows he received the discontinuation letter on 29/11/2021 but again their letter dated 06/05/2021*isvsilent if hewas discontinued. Hence, he continued with his studies lawfully. Those were the submissions By th^partiesrHavingicarefully"and dispassionately gone through the affidavit, statement of facts, counter affidavit,_reply to the.statement andconsideredithe. submissions.by the parties^Mind=the-eentraMssue=fo£-consideration=and=deterrnination-is whether the applicant:.has:advanced~sufficientTeason;to warrant:this court to exercise its discretion and grant the orders of certiorari and mandamus as requested. In this .main-issue, there.are two_subJssues_namely,_whether the Applicant-was^ not given chance to defend leading to breach of natural justice by the Rrst Respondent; and whether the allegations were false, been barren of supporting evidence. From the two issues raised above, and, this been a Judicial Review mattei;- thiS'i6ourt is guided^by -the Conditions'stated by the -Gourt of Appeal ofcTanzania :in thescaserof.Sanair.Muuim be~andrAnother vs.. Muhere-:Ghacha -[A990]a=rLR-K54.»wheneby Jtsinstruetively.'laid-down: guiding principles upon which order of certiorari can be issued namely: - i. Takingintoaccountmatters which it

ought not to have taken into account; Page 13 of 26 ii. Not taking into account matters which it ought to have taken into ■account; iii. Lack or excess of. junisdiction^Conclusioa-arrivediafcis so unreasonable that-noreasonable=authority ooutetevepcome terit; iv. Rules ofnaturaljusticehave:beenrviolated;and v. - Illegality^of-procedufeor decision. Let me start With the first sub-issue whether thelApplieant was nofgiven chance to defend, leading to breach of natural justice by the First Respondent. As discerned from the facts deponed in both affidavit and counter affidavit and, the submissions by both parties, there is no dispute about the fact that the Applicant was admitted at the NIT as a diploma student taking mechanical engineering course in the class of 2018/2019 with a Registration No. NU/BCME/2018/675 and that, he was issued with identificdttonscafdr The'rest of th i facts are disputedr While the Applicant maintains that he pursued his studies successfully to its completion and was awarded with the Statement of Results pending issuance of Certificates of Completion and Transcripts. The Respondents on the other hand, contend that fact arguing that the Applicant did not com pleteiiis'studies because' hewas~discoritinued from his studies after been found guilty of committing examination irregularities. The Applicant opposes the- Respondent's argument stating that, had

he was disconti nued, he could not-have been allowed not only to sit in the examinationsrin:cdntroversy,zbut_also,:_he could-not have-beenrgiven' neither=a=Statement-of Results^ nor^Glearance^Form whiclr-was^dully signedby. all :departments::He argued_also that he could not have been assigned with AVN by NACTE. Also, his name could not have been included, in.the Graduands' Book.. Moreover, been confident, the Applicant applied for further studies at the DIT where he was-to-present among-others Completion Certificate" and Transcripts which were yet supplied to him by the NIT. However, seeing none of the prerequisite certificates were afforded to him, he followed up for the same by writing a letter dated 20/4/2022 which was replied on 06/05/2022. Surprising, to him,, the same letter informed him that his results.were nullifiedJ^the Examination-Board o_n 19/11/2021. It is from: that information'^that :for the-flrstf.time';he:Jeamt- about nullification of his results on allegations of misconduct in the Examination Room. According to the Applicant, he was neither charged Page 15 of-26 nor given opportunity to defend wheh such a serious decision'was made against his rights. That, this was a violation of natural justice. . The Respondents- on their' side counter-argued the Applicants submissions -that-the- Applicant was given full chance of

defending himself-before_the-StandingExamination-Irregularities:£ommittee-which heard=the-allegations. That, the- Applicant was“suppiied with a_charge to which he replied in writing per a letter dated 17/8/2021 in which he conceded to move out of tne examination room on allegation that he feared to be dealt with by the invigilator as- he had an expired identity card. The Standing Examination Irregularities Committee=disbelieved his -defence and endorsed the allegations leveled against him that he was found with prohibited materials in the examination room been a mobile phone and ran out with it from the examination room with it in destruction of evidence and suspended him from studies pending decision of the Examination Board which approved t h e . Standing Examination Irregularities Committee findings. That, the Applicant was served with a notice of suspension from studies dated 11/10/2021 through a dispatch book which he signed to acknowledge receipt on 12/10/2021. After the Examination Board Page 16 of 26 approving 'the""findings~of _the~Standing” 'Examinatibn- Irregularities Committee, decided to discontinue him from studies and served him with a noticetothaheffect on 23/41/2021 through a dispatch book on which he signed.on 29/l l/2021to-acknowledge receipt of the same; In his rejoinder the Applicant disputed' "all the' allegations by the Respondents that he w a

s'’neither‘'suspended nor notified about suspension or diseontinuation_from studies or else NIT could.-haveisaid so in her subsequent letters when he requested for his certificate especially the one dated 06/05/2022. I had enough time to-examine the doeuments in controversy.-1 think the- key deeisive^faetor-for-determinifig=the-truth=in=this'eontrovers\r=is -the timing of the events as displayed in the documents. One, the Applicant requested for his certificates on 20/04/2022. At this time, according to the Respondents, the Applicant had full knowledge that'he was already" ^pended^and sabsequently discontinued from studies per the notices?datedi ll/10/2021 and; 23/ll/202l7'5allegedly received on ::12/10/2021 and i2 9 /ll/2 02 1 ' respectively/“The Applicant: simply denied to have been served with the said notices, therefore, he was not informed. He contended that had he was so suspended and 'discontinued" from stu d ie srth e -N fM e tte r dated- 0 6 /0 5 /2022~eould have said so. A question is, does it mean that orhission~of. mentioning of the notices in the letter dated 06/05/2022 invalidates the said notices. The Applicant's answer-is yes,vwhile the Respondents'-answer is no. In my strong view, with due respect, the Applicant, the Respondents are correct because mere failure to mention the 11/10/2021 and 2371172021 notices in the reply letter dated 06/05/2022 was a mere over

sight which has nothing to bear with the'said notices. Moreover, in his argument, the Applieant^aparfcfrom-merely-denying knowledge-of the-notices,-he did not challenge-thendispatch books=;in=:which he is saiditoihave signed acknowledging receipt of the said two notices. This Court finds that the Applicant was well informed about his suspension and discontinuation by the time he pretended to write a letter _datecl“20/0’4/2022'because tHSr^is evidence_that'tte was already dully served with "the notice's for sUspensiorTand ^isconfirmatioiT from- studies. The next question is whether the Applicant had knowledge on how the disciplinary action was reached at. The Applicant position is that he did not know any institution of disciplinary charges against him. The Page 18 of-26 Respondent contend-that'he-was'dully serve'd'with the;charge"sheet and summons:: to appear_before_ the -Standing Examination Irregularities Committee. This-Court has-keenly considered this issue. Looking at a letter dated 17/08/2021-written -by the-Applieant-to^the-vMsajili-Mkuu-meaning "the Principal=Registrar=of-the NIT headed "Kuondoka Kwenye Chumba cha Mtihani" meaning "leaving the examination room", the Applicant clearly acknowledged leaving, the examination room, although he gave a different reason about.expiry ofjdentificatiqn£ard4J\IIJn all,-the.issueJs,. to what was the Applicant responding to when

hejvrote the said Letter?. In other words, were. there any allegations leveled., against him,, if in affirmative what were those allegations? The answer is found in the objective of said letter which reads as follows: - "Dhumuni la barua hii ni kutoa maelezo kwa nini nilitoka katika ehumbachamtihani" LiterallyTneansrthe objective “of the letter was to' give^xplahations fdr him to move out of the examination room. In my view, the letter as rightly argued by the Respondent, was in reply to some allegations which concerned a prohibited act of moving out of the examination room without permit from invigilators. Therefore, there Page 19 of-26 were some^allegations against him; The first'part of the question'asked above is-answered in affirmative. The second part is what were those allegations.Itis^ m yrrfindings-thattheallegations-w ere-intheGharge sheet dated t2/8/2021which was served to-him in^his personal capacity. The charge sheet .had. two counts namely, one, possession of unauthorized..materia] (mobile phone]i in examination room and.two, destroying, evidence by running, away, from, examination room with a mobile phone. The charge required him to sub'mit':his defence in three days'time which he did via his letter dated 17/08/2021. Was the-Applicant=iustified-to=continue-with^his=rStudies«after—the suspension and discontinuation notifications? The answer is in negative. I say

so because the records before me in this matter is very clear not only that the Applicant was fully informed of the decisions made against him but also was involved in the process to reach.at those decisions.^ The minutes of the Standing?Examination Iifegularities-Committee:dated 19/8/2021,"■at1page 11, indicates_discussionoLthe:Bllegat(ons against the Applicant JohnThadeus with-Registration' No. NIT/BGME/2018/675: The minute-tells the- matters discussed which'comprised of name-and Registration Number of Candidate, Status of Candidate, Details, Brief Facts and^Evidence'ofExaminatibrrlrregularity/Candidate's Defence and Recommendations of the Examination Committee. In respect of the Applicant, the- relevant part of the minute is written as follows: - "John Thadeus NTT/BCME/2018/675, the Candidate is undertaking a Diploma NTA level 6 in M echanical Engineering. 1) the Candidate was found to have a m obile phone in the exam ination room arid managed to run away with it for the-purpose-of- destroying- the- evidence w hen-he- was siting fo r the Test o f the Module Basic Computer Programming ITT06212T. a) A witness candidate signed the declaration form b) Lecture's Testimony, the Lecturer confirm ed that the candidate was caught with a m obile phone but managed to run away from the exam ination room ." The two invigilators gave their testimonies also demonstrating on how they

apprehended.the Applicant in the examination, room using a mobile phone and he refused to surrender it instead he stormed out of the examination room. Then, there is a lengthy defence by the Applicant captioned in the minute which in short, shows that he entered into the examination room with expired "identity card^when' t h e ' invigilator-approached -him ^ he’ decided-to stand up and-go outside the examination room with the said- identify card and a calculator. He had agreed to receive the charge sheet and_agreed its contents as correct and conceded that going outside examination room is to commit examination irregularity.. Following these) the- Standing Examination Irregularities- Committee .disbelieved the story by the Applicant and believed: that of the: invigilators. It recommended thus: "a) Given that the candidate violated Regulation - 7.6(2-)(6)(ll) and^18). of-the- Exam ination Rules , and. Regulations o f 2018 his exam ination results fo r the respective NTA Level 6 be n u llified as stipulated in the respective Regulations. (b) The Candidate be discontinued from studies as stipulated in Regulation 7 .6 (6 )(ll)(1 8 )(i) and (ii) o f 2018" There is an attendance register of the Standing Examination Irregularities Committee meeting attached to the minutes which shows the Applicant attended and signed it on 19/8/2021, which was a date of the inquiry hearing. Page 22

of-26 As it-is-Gan'be’ seenpthe Standing Examination Iiregtilarities Committee minute-is-veryelaborate-thatthe-Applicant-not onlyappeared-beforethe StandingiExamination Irregularities Committee im answer-tothe charge but also that/ he?was^given 0pp0rtunity:t0“defend=and=diddefend, on ly that hisdefence wasdisbelieved. It was complained by the 'Applicant that'he did not appear before the' ExaminatibTis Board_to which the Standing ExaminatiorPIrregularities~ Committee recommendations were approved, therefore since it was the Examinations rBoard that--=decided=his:fate-sthenrits“ decision- flaws.—The fadrthat=the Applicant did not:attend-at_the Examinations Board was conceded. to_bythe_Resp.ondents,_but pointed out that the Examinations . Board was a mere approving body of the Standing Examination Irregularities Committee fact findings where the fate of the parties was determined. With due respect to-the Applicant,~r agree with'the'Respondents,“ the' Examinations. Boant^vygSjusLa .referral,Jhejjghte werejjetermined by the Standing Examination Irregularities. Committee where he was given chance to be heard. Given the evidenee and the facts displayed above, the Applicant's complaint that he was condemned unheard and that the NIT breached Page 23 of 26 principles of naturalrjustice of denying:hinropportunitytoenterdefence when -it reached" at its decision of- suspending and

ultimately discontinuing him from studies, becomes erased. The first sub-issue whether the Applicant was not given chance to defend leading to break of natural justice by the NIT is answered in negative. This-brings=me=to=thd=second=sub;issafe-whetheNthe=allegations were false, been barren of supporting evidence. I am aware that this is a judicial review case, this Court is not sitting in an appeal. However*-been guided-by^the-Principles in Sanai Murumbe and Another vs. Muhere Chacha case (supra) that” taking into account matters which the inferior tribunal ought not to have taken into account and not taking into account matters which it ought not to have taken into account. This Court will look at the complaint from these angles. It is the argument by the Applicant that lack of affidavit of those persons-who-were-in-the^examination^room-irenders the^allegations against him unproven. With due respect, as analyzed above) before the Standing Examination Irregularities Committee there attended a student who was in the examination room and two invigilators. The record in the minute sheet of the Standing Examination Irregularities Committee is, in my firm view, Page 24 of 26 self-explanatorysthafc those per’sons" attended andvtestified before the StandingExaminationTrregularitiesCommittee. Further, it was the recommendations of the Standing Examination Irregularities Committee which

was approved by the Examinations BoardrBefore thirCourt, it” is“the record of the inferior tribunal that is looked=iht0r=this=Gourt^is^=nbt=for=taking=fresh=evidenee=from^the^ witnesses-whoattendedandtestified=beforethetribunal7 Therefore/ under the guidance in Sanai Murumbe and Another vs. Muhere Chacha case-(supra), I- am satisfied that -there are no matters which were not taken into account w fiicfrNIT ought to have taken into account. All the necessary matters which include evidence and procedures were followed accordingly. The second sub issue whether the allegations were false been barren of evidence to support is also answered in negative. Having disposed of the above issues, on the reasons stated above, this Court finds that the grounds advanced by the Applicant are devoid of merit. The grounds upon which the orders of certiorari were sought cannot stand. Consistent with this finding, the order of mandamus cannot, in the circumstances, issue. In' the^upshot^ahdrfortfie reasons stated above," I' do not find; m eritin ■this application-I-hereby do-refrain from granting theordersof certiorari- and /773/7(^/w^.^nheiappliGatip.n=iteEthus^dismissed.=:No.ondenEasito;Gosts. It is so ordered. Delivered at Dodoma Tnthepresence o f the parties via Virtual Court this 25th day of March,- 2024. Right of appeal dully explained. Page 26 o f 26