19881213 TZHC Dar es Salaam1

MISCELL/i.NEqTS CI~ Cl\.USE N0❖ 43 OF 198'(.·- LUJ'ONk··SIIUBI. BALLONZI•• • • • • ••• o. o • . • • o • .,. • o. • o ~ •., . . . . .APPELLll.NT versus TlIE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY :r-mTISTRY OF ENERGY ll.ND MINERti.LS .. • ,. . • e • o "• ~ • •. •., • •. • • •. RESPONDENT ' . RULJNG Bi&TI 1, J • 'lbis is an application for an order of certiorari and nandaous,. The application seekS an order of certiorari renoving into this court. for the purposes of being·quasb.ed the decision of the respondent refusing to appoint an electrio inspector, and an order of nandaous d:i.reoting the respondent to appoint an electric inspeotor·to inspect the wiring of the prow.sea of tho· applicant0 llhe applic.a.tion is supported by an a.ffidavito Mr. Ballonzi, tho applicant· in this case, argued that what was in dispute in this case a.re the -roaso11s why electricity has been disoonneoted froo the applicant's houseo Ile refe.ITod to rule 44 of the Electr:i.oity Rules• Ile stated that the a;pplican·t was denying-iopropor use and that such a dispute oa.n ohly be resolved. by an electric inspeotoro Mr• Bal.lonz:i. .. ref~ed._ tb.~_Co:urt j;9__rule._45 of .the. El.oo.tr:tcity Rules. Ile also refer.red to sections 53 and 67 of the ~ootrici ty · Ordj.r..ance C ~ . IIe su.b:ritted that the respondent should be oonpollod to appoint an electrio 5.nspeo-tor " ... because he is obliged under the law to do so when there is a dispu-te beween a consur.1er and 'MJl!ESCO• 1md evon if the respondent had a. discretion to appoint an electric_ inspector or not, since the respondont had flouted the rules of natural justice by not conducting_ n. henri11g bofore decidil:lg not to appoint an electric inspect.Jr, he should be conplelled to do so,~ :Ballonzi,, conoludede In reply Mr. Woreoa, loamed State Attorney for the respondent aulnittod that under the :&I.eotrioity Ordinance there is an Electricity Appeal Boa.l.'d in section 17(j The applicant should have referred the natter there. Mr• Werena sul:nittod that this court had.no jurisdiction to on~ ta.in this r.iattor because tho applicant hoo. _not exhausted the appeal. systeo provided in the Ordinanceo The second lino of Mro 1-Terena's a.rgunont was · that assuoing the court ha.:1 jurisdiction, tho consuner had not conpliod /_1 with the Electricity Rules aa'ld as such the licens~ was anti tled to nake the clisoonneciiion. Ile argued i'urther tb.at tho requirGr.lent of Rule 44 is na.ndator,y '. .·: onl;r when the consunerts haa'Jds are not tainted with non coopliance. . -' I 2 = \ . In a short reply Mr ~ ... sufu5.tted that seot::..ons -17 and 18 of the Electricity' Ordina.npe woro not applicable -in this_ cas()o· 1- 'lhe is~ in .this application appears "Go b0 narrowo It is whether tho respondent is entitled to refuse to appoil1'~ an oleotric inspector for the reasons he has adduced. My a."lSWor to this: is sue is, in the nega;_,;i.vo .i.. INcause o th erw:i.se .,,__ • -·" 45 t_.rJ -'.-u.i.e ren ered nea11:uig.~esso !,JOUl~d:b~ • n rm. .LJ.J.8 oonsuoer. has a right to appeal to an oleo-trio inspector. with regard to supply of electricity according to rulo 45• If ·the rcspondo:i1; nay .decide not to appoint a.n electric inspector,_ then the Col'l.stinc:r has no reoedy. I ao satisfied that the respondent has got a pub1io duty to porlom hore arul ~ t U, to appoint an eleotr.io inspecto:r-& Section 1.0 of tho Elootrl.city Oi-dinanoe gives the respondent power to appoir.d, one:i a!l.d in a. case like the present where a consuner has had elect-ric:b:y cl.isccm.nec-'tiod b'a:. his preoises, tho duty to appoint such insp<:JCtor bccones nru1da.to:cy-. I agree With the applicant that sections 17 and 18 of the Eloctrioity Act are not applioa.ble here because section 1.8 in pa.rtiC'Ular rc:f01"S fo appeals under· seotion 16(4) and (5) of tho O:rdinanoel!> I an sa·~isf'i.ed therefore that the decision not to appoint an electric inspector was ,r.eo11g and ul t:ra 'Vires• It is accordi.ng'.13 qua.shod• Aoco:rcling1,y, a:i.'l order of na'ldanu.s directing tho respondent to appoint a.11 e:lecfai.o inspecii:l.on i.:1 ~.:;EJ\••od as prqec1.. ~o respondent is directed to appoint an olec.t•io inspootor as pmyad 1u tho applicant. The application is th(1refore gra.ni;ed a.'3 prayed wi tb. costs. Ruling deliveroo. in preseno<. of' Mr-,. Sa}:da fc1..· i;he Ao Goneral/Respondent and Mr.Maira. for Ba.llonz:i. f 01· app1icf~·1io ---~W~~)~ L--- --~-- JUDGE ~-=) 13/12/1988