alexander j barunguza vs law school of tanzania 2022 tzhc 14079 24 october 2022

alexander j barunguza vs law school of tanzania 2022 tzhc 14079 24 october 2022

The petition is incompetent because the petitioner is pursuing an appeal against the same subject matter, and section 8(2) of the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act bars the court from exercising jurisdiction where adequate alternative remedies are available or being pursued. Additionally, there are no rules permitting live-streaming of proceedings, and the petitioner failed to meet the requirements for a temporary injunction.

Citation
alexander j barunguza vs law school of tanzania 2022 tzhc 14079 24 october 2022
Parties
Petitioner: Alexander J. Barunguza; 1st Respondent: The Law School of Tanzania; 2nd Respondent: Hon Judge Benhajj S. Masoud; 3rd Respondent: The Attorney General
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
24 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Preliminary Matters
Outcome
petition struck out as incompetent
Legal Topics
Open Justice, Live Streaming of Court Proceedings, Temporary Injunction, Exhaustion of Remedies, Judicial Review, Principles of Natural Justice
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Open Justice Live Streaming of Court Proceedings Temporary Injunction Exhaustion of Remedies Judicial Review +1 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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander J. Barunguza

Petitioner

The Law School of Tanzania

1st Respondent

Hon Judge Benhajj S. Masoud

2nd Respondent

The Attorney General

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Preliminary Matters

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant the petitioner's prayer for live-streaming of proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the court should issue a temporary injunction to suspend ongoing training by the 1st respondent
  3. 3 Whether the petition is maintainable in light of pending appeal and section 8(2) of the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act

Ratio Decidendi

The petition is incompetent because the petitioner is pursuing an appeal against the same subject matter, and section 8(2) of the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act bars the court from exercising jurisdiction where adequate alternative remedies are available or being pursued. Additionally, there are no rules permitting live-streaming of proceedings, and the petitioner failed to meet the requirements for a temporary injunction.

Court Disposition

petition struck out as incompetent

Orders

  • Petition struck out without costs.