PETER MICHAEL MADELEKA RULING COMPETENCY

PETER MICHAEL MADELEKA RULING COMPETENCY

The petition is incompetent for failure to demonstrate personal impact as required by section 4(2) of BRADEA, for failure to exhaust alternative remedies, and for impleading a non-existent party. These defects are incurable and warrant striking out the petition.

Citation
PETER MICHAEL MADELEKA RULING COMPETENCY
Parties
Petitioner: Peter Michael Madeleka; 1st Respondent: Minister of Home Affairs (MOHA); 2nd Respondent: Commissioner General of Tanzania Immigration Services Department; 3rd Respondent: The Office of the Attorney General; 4th Respondent: Emanuel Kwame Ayekeh; 5th Respondent: Josephat Arthur Bada; 6th Respondent: Muhamed Damaro Camara; 7th Respondent: The Director of Public Prosecutions; 8th Respondent: The Director of Immigration Services
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
1 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Preliminary Objections
Outcome
petition struck out as incompetent
Legal Topics
Locus Standi, Exhaustion of Remedies, Misjoinder of Parties, Judicial Review, Public Interest Litigation
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Citizenship Law Locus Standi Exhaustion of Remedies Misjoinder of Parties Judicial Review Public Interest Litigation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 40 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Michael Madeleka

Petitioner

Minister of Home Affairs (MOHA)

1st Respondent

Commissioner General of Tanzania Immigration Services Department

2nd Respondent

The Office of the Attorney General

3rd Respondent

Emanuel Kwame Ayekeh

4th Respondent

Josephat Arthur Bada

5th Respondent

Muhamed Damaro Camara

6th Respondent

The Director of Public Prosecutions

7th Respondent

The Director of Immigration Services

8th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Preliminary Objections

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner has locus standi under section 4(2) of the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act (BRADEA) as amended
  2. 2 Whether the petition is incompetent for failure to exhaust alternative remedies
  3. 3 Whether the petition is defective for impleading a non-existing party

Ratio Decidendi

The petition is incompetent for failure to demonstrate personal impact as required by section 4(2) of BRADEA, for failure to exhaust alternative remedies, and for impleading a non-existent party. These defects are incurable and warrant striking out the petition.

Court Disposition

petition struck out as incompetent

Orders

  • Petition struck out for incompetence due to failure to comply with section 4(2) of BRADEA, failure to exhaust alternative remedies, and impleading a non-existent party.
  • No order as to costs.