in the matter of an application by asgarali ramzanali manekia for orders of certiorari and mandamus vs in the matter of the minister for home affairs 1986 tzhc 31 13 j

SI w AT DAR MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL GAUSS >, 39 of 1966 IN THE MtfBMR OP AN RAMZANALI MAN3KIA K E CfiDBRS OF e B K H O U R I ANB MASEDfflfflS AND ''i n t h e m a t t e r op t h e m i n i s t e r f o r h o b s a f f a i r s RULING |»HEimS,JK.- In this application the applicant sought for leav* to be granted to him to seek an order of certiorari for the removal of the decision of the Minister (which ordered that the applicant be deported) to this Gourt for the purpose of quashing it and for an order of mandats that applicant be restored/issued with a valid residential permit class A* The applicant also prayed that the deportation ©r&tr issued against him on 14/5/86 be stayed pending determination of the application* ' Ch 20/5/86 the Court declined to hear the application ex-parte and ordered that the A.Q. Chambers and the B t r e o W of Immigration be served with notice ox hearing andwith the necessary papers. The matter was adjourned to 22/5/86 for hearing. On 22/5/86 when the matter came up for hearing Mrs# «i3*oro ljaastsed counsel for the respondent/Rep. asked far tine to study the papers which she said had only been served to her the day before. The application which was not apposed was granted and the deportation order was stayed pending determinations of the application. The court also ordered that the applicant be released from jail, faring of the application was fixed for 29/5/86, Ch 29/5/86 Mr. Marando gave a detailed submissieas regarding applicants presence in the country - How he visited the country for the first time in 196? as a visitor and again in 1968 when he obtained resident permit. later, it was argued, he decided to work on his own and that he applied for a resident permit class A which, according/*to th«> leaned counsel for the applicant, was granted - amiexture H to the affidavit. The said pe*tait is dateil 21/ 1/ 86 . f- : ■ '* 1W 5/SO* m i abated M M M T - U ~ unlawfully and r e u s e d in custody, it was alU j e d V the ttot M s resident permit was a forgery. The learned counsel « g » M the question whether pr not a r®sid«nt permit is a forged document i, a matter to be decided 'by the Court and not by the Minister fox T3me Affairs. ' It was argued that the powers of the Minister to deport a p « . o n under section 24(1) (*) »t the Immigration Act,1972 could only I. exercised where it is found that such person has no valid documents authorizing his stay in the country. It was further argued that even if for the sake of argument the court found as a matter of fact & a t applicant's resident permit was a forgery, the applicant was a victim of the tamigration Department and that the Court should order that he he issued with a valid , resident Jermit. After Mr. Marando'e submission Hat. H g oew o l e s n M d ,1 for the respondent/Republic prayed for time to prepare h«r repj*. was no objection to the application and the application,WM granted and the matter was adjouned to 5/6/86 for hearing. . ; lii 5/6786 when hearing resumed M r . Marando was no where to > The Court exercised its indulgence and adjourned the hearing seen /6/86. '(Then the matter came up for hearixig on 12/6/86 Mr* ltoeai^o to 12 ’ ......... — —— 4.oated was asain absent. Mrs. Hgororo told the Court that she had o to hin the hearing date. Mrs. Hgororo argued that Hr. Marandoi was playing delaying tactic. and prayed that she be allowed to proceed ex-parte. Beaming in mind that Mr. Marando knew of the hearing dates on both occasions and yet be decided not to put up appearance and it fit not to communicate to the court why he di^ not appear 1 court fountL that Mrs. Ngororo's application for leave to proceed ex-parte was not :.n the circumstances unreasonable. She was allowed to narrate the respondent* s case to the court ex-parte. Apparently even the applicant did not appear on both ocoasions. Eccm what I have heard from lte.. Hgororo, learned counsel for the respondent, and By inspection of the exchequxe receipt bofk and the permLt hook T.I.F4 which were brought to court, it is amply cj.ear that the document - anne*ure H to the affidavit in the possession Of the applicant and which document purport* to be a valid re,:, dent permit class A was not issued by the Immigration Department. Bor x» ■ the, shs.2000/= shown in the purported permit as having been paid as f e w for issue of the permit vide. E.R. Ho. 0061819 reoeived bj the Immigration Office. appiieant who has clearly be swidled. But it is one Court to feel sorry for the applicant and quite another fear the r oourt to say that because the applicant has been a victim of forgpry then the Immigration authority has to issue a Valid resident permit to the applicant, The argument that the Minister of Home Affairs I - had no power to serve deportation order against the applicant before the question whether ar not his purported resident permit Clais A« innexure H to the affidavit is valid is answered is well taken. This was the reason why this court had earlier ordered that the applicant be released from custody and allowed to remain in the country pending determination of the application regarding1 the volidity of annexujre H to the affidavit. 'i . Now that the court is satisfied that the purported resident permit Class A -Annexure H to the affidavit is a forgery and has not been issued by the Immigration Department; It follows as night follows day that the applicant's presence in Tanzania is unlawful. The application for orders of Mandaaus and certiorari is accordingly dianiseed* Consequently the Ministers Cfcder •dated'14/5/94 jit -l|ip#1sar restored. Bie respondent to have his costs. I N. ■T&.TT ASmSSSBm r Dar ee Salaam. 13/6/8$.