Hon

Hon

The High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the petition because the acts complained of—namely, the suspension of the petitioner from Parliament—were conducted within the jurisdiction of the National Assembly under the Parliamentary Standing Orders and did not contravene any mandatory constitutional provisions. Article 100 of the Constitution and Section 5 of the Parliamentary Immunities, Powers, and Privileges Act bar the Court from questioning such parliamentary proceedings. The petition did not specifically challenge the constitutionality of any provision of the Standing Orders but rather alleged procedural improprieties, which are not justiciable under the cited constitutional and...

Citation
Hon
Parties
Petitioner: Hon. Luhaga Joelson Mpina; 1st Respondent: The Hon. Speaker of the National Assembly; 2nd Respondent: The Hon. Minister for Agriculture; 3rd Respondent: The Hon. Attorney General
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
1 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Preliminary Objections
Outcome
petition struck out for want of jurisdiction
Legal Topics
Parliamentary Privilege, Separation of Powers, Judicial Review, Constitutional Remedies, Standing Orders, Jurisdiction, Access to Court
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Parliamentary Law Parliamentary Privilege Separation of Powers Judicial Review Constitutional Remedies Standing Orders Jurisdiction +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 5 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hon. Luhaga Joelson Mpina

Petitioner

The Hon. Speaker of the National Assembly

1st Respondent

The Hon. Minister for Agriculture

2nd Respondent

The Hon. Attorney General

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Preliminary Objections

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition challenging the suspension of a Member of Parliament under Article 100 of the Constitution and the Parliamentary Immunities, Powers, and Privileges Act
  2. 2 Whether the petitioner was required to exhaust alternative remedies before filing the constitutional petition
  3. 3 Whether there was misjoinder of the 2nd respondent

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the petition because the acts complained of—namely, the suspension of the petitioner from Parliament—were conducted within the jurisdiction of the National Assembly under the Parliamentary Standing Orders and did not contravene any mandatory constitutional provisions. Article 100 of the Constitution and Section 5 of the Parliamentary Immunities, Powers, and Privileges Act bar the Court from questioning such parliamentary proceedings. The petition did not specifically challenge the constitutionality of any provision of the Standing Orders but rather alleged procedural improprieties, which are not justiciable under the cited constitutional and...

Court Disposition

petition struck out for want of jurisdiction

Orders

  • Petition struck out for want of jurisdiction
  • No order as to costs, as this is public interest litigation