lutter symphorian nelson vs attorney general another 1999 tzca 22 6 september 1999

lutter symphorian nelson vs attorney general another 1999 tzca 22 6 september 1999

The appeal was allowed because the Court found, upon fresh evaluation of the evidence, that the 2nd respondent and his agents, with his knowledge and consent, made statements during the campaign with intent to exploit tribal differences, contrary to section 108(2)(a) of the Elections Act. This contravention required the election to be declared void, regardless of its effect on the result. The High Court erred in law by considering the effect on the result and by failing to evaluate all material evidence on tribalism.

Citation
lutter symphorian nelson vs attorney general another 1999 tzca 22 6 september 1999
Parties
Appellant: Lutter Symphorian Nelson; Respondent: The Hon. Attorney General; Respondent: Ibrahim Said Msabaha
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
6 September 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; election declared void
Legal Topics
Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices, Intimidation, Treating, Tribalism in Elections, Standard of Proof in Election Petitions
Source Language
English
Election Law Constitutional Law Election Petitions Corrupt Practices Intimidation Treating Tribalism in Elections Standard of Proof in Election Petitions

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lutter Symphorian Nelson

Appellant

The Hon. Attorney General

Respondent

Ibrahim Said Msabaha

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether treating, intimidation, corrupt practices, and tribalism were proved to the required standard in the Kibaha constituency parliamentary election
  2. 2 Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the election petition
  3. 3 Whether the election should be declared void under section 108(2)(a) of the Elections Act, 1985

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the Court found, upon fresh evaluation of the evidence, that the 2nd respondent and his agents, with his knowledge and consent, made statements during the campaign with intent to exploit tribal differences, contrary to section 108(2)(a) of the Elections Act. This contravention required the election to be declared void, regardless of its effect on the result. The High Court erred in law by considering the effect on the result and by failing to evaluate all material evidence on tribalism.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; election declared void

Orders

  • Decision of the High Court dismissing the election petition is reversed
  • Election of the 2nd respondent as Member of Parliament for Kibaha constituency is declared void