solomon alexander ole saibull vs hubert hemed mbaga another 1981 tzca 5 21 august 1981

solomon alexander ole saibull vs hubert hemed mbaga another 1981 tzca 5 21 august 1981

No credible evidence of tribal incitement or corrupt practices; illegal campaigning by supporters was isolated and did not affect the election result; no evidence of consent or approval by the first respondent; non-compliance affected only a small number of voters and did not alter the outcome.

Citation
solomon alexander ole saibull vs hubert hemed mbaga another 1981 tzca 5 21 august 1981
Parties
Appellant: Solomon Alexander Ole Saibull; First Respondent: Hubert Hemed Mbaga; Second Respondent: The Hon. Attorney General
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
21 August 1981
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Illegal Campaign Practices, Corrupt Practices, Tribal Incitement, Non Compliance With Election Provisions
Source Language
English
Election Law Civil Procedure Illegal Campaign Practices Corrupt Practices Tribal Incitement Non Compliance With Election Provisions

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Solomon Alexander Ole Saibull

Appellant

Hubert Hemed Mbaga

First Respondent

The Hon. Attorney General

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent exploited tribal differences during the campaign
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent or his agents engaged in corrupt practices
  3. 3 Whether illegal public campaigning affected the election result

Ratio Decidendi

No credible evidence of tribal incitement or corrupt practices; illegal campaigning by supporters was isolated and did not affect the election result; no evidence of consent or approval by the first respondent; non-compliance affected only a small number of voters and did not alter the outcome.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs