20171108 TZHC Dar es Salaam

20171108 TZHC Dar es Salaam

The respondents failed to provide the applicant with clear, specific, and unambiguous particulars of the alleged breach and did not give her a fair opportunity to be heard before issuing the notice of revocation, violating both the principle of natural justice and mandatory procedures under the Land Act. The notice was vague and did not allow the applicant to effectively defend herself.

Citation
20171108 TZHC Dar es Salaam
Parties
Applicant: Mrs. Ester Frederick Sumaye; 1st Respondent: Authorized Land Officer, Mvomero District Council; 2nd Respondent: Ministry of Lands Housing and Human Settlements Development; 3rd Respondent: The Hon. Attorney General
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
8 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (miscellaneous Cause) / Ruling on Application for Prerogative Orders
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Natural Justice, Right of Occupancy, Procedural Fairness, Certiorari, Mandamus, Prohibition
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Land Law Constitutional Law Judicial Review Natural Justice Right of Occupancy Procedural Fairness Certiorari +2 more

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 3 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs. Ester Frederick Sumaye

Applicant

Authorized Land Officer, Mvomero District Council

1st Respondent

Ministry of Lands Housing and Human Settlements Development

2nd Respondent

The Hon. Attorney General

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (miscellaneous Cause) / Ruling on Application for Prerogative Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents violated the basic principle of natural justice (right to be heard)
  2. 2 Whether the respondents violated or disregarded mandatory procedures under the Land Act
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to orders of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents failed to provide the applicant with clear, specific, and unambiguous particulars of the alleged breach and did not give her a fair opportunity to be heard before issuing the notice of revocation, violating both the principle of natural justice and mandatory procedures under the Land Act. The notice was vague and did not allow the applicant to effectively defend herself.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • Order of certiorari granted quashing the decision of the 1st Respondent in the notice dated 19th September 2016 recommending revocation of the applicant's right of occupancy.
  • Orders of prohibition and mandamus refused as moot or unnecessary.