julius ishengoma francis ndyanabo vs attorney general 2001 tzhc 44 28 june 2001

julius ishengoma francis ndyanabo vs attorney general 2001 tzhc 44 28 june 2001

The requirement of T.shs.5,000,000/= as security for costs under section 111(2) of the Elections Act is excessive and curtails access to justice, violating constitutional guarantees of equality and fair hearing. Exempting the Attorney General under section 111(3) is discriminatory. The statutory provisions are arbitrary and do not meet the test of constitutionality.

Citation
julius ishengoma francis ndyanabo vs attorney general 2001 tzhc 44 28 june 2001
Parties
Petitioner: Julius Ishengoma Francis Ndyanabo; Respondent: The Attorney General
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
28 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Dissenting Ruling at High Court
Outcome
Petition allowed (minority/dissenting view); no immediate declaration of unconstitutionality; Parliament given nine months to address the issues.
Legal Topics
Access to Justice, Security for Costs, Discrimination, Right to Fair Hearing, Statutory Interpretation
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Election Law Civil Procedure Access to Justice Security for Costs Discrimination Right to Fair Hearing Statutory Interpretation

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julius Ishengoma Francis Ndyanabo

Petitioner

The Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Dissenting Ruling at High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 111(2), (3), and (6) of the Elections Act, 1985 are unconstitutional for imposing excessive security for costs and creating discrimination
  2. 2 Whether the requirement of T.shs.5,000,000/= as security for costs curtails access to justice and the right to a fair hearing
  3. 3 Whether exempting the Attorney General from the security for costs requirement is discriminatory

Ratio Decidendi

The requirement of T.shs.5,000,000/= as security for costs under section 111(2) of the Elections Act is excessive and curtails access to justice, violating constitutional guarantees of equality and fair hearing. Exempting the Attorney General under section 111(3) is discriminatory. The statutory provisions are arbitrary and do not meet the test of constitutionality.

Court Disposition

Petition allowed (minority/dissenting view); no immediate declaration of unconstitutionality; Parliament given nine months to address the issues.

Orders

  • Parliament is allowed a period of nine months to address the issues raised and take necessary steps to rectify the position.