shaabani fundi others vs the attorney general 2023 tzhc 19120 20 july 2023

shaabani fundi others vs the attorney general 2023 tzhc 19120 20 july 2023

The affidavits did not comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 8 of the Notaries Public and Commissioner for Oaths Act, as there was no evidence the deponents appeared before the commissioner for oaths, either physically or virtually, on the stated dates. The petition alleged violations of constitutional articles outside the scope of Articles 12 to 29, rendering it incompetent under Section 4(1) of the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act.

Citation
shaabani fundi others vs the attorney general 2023 tzhc 19120 20 july 2023
Parties
Petitioner: Shaabani Fundi; Petitioner: Patrick Nyelesa Nhigula; Petitioner: Restituta Kalemera; Petitioner: Nkole Muya; Petitioner: Emmanuel C. Emmanuel; Petitioner: Bashir Kassam; Respondent: The Attorney General
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
20 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Preliminary Objections
Outcome
petition dismissed as incompetent
Legal Topics
Citizenship, Affidavit Requirements, Virtual Notarization, Standing, Redress for Constitutional Violations
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Citizenship Affidavit Requirements Virtual Notarization Standing Redress for Constitutional Violations

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 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shaabani Fundi

Petitioner

Patrick Nyelesa Nhigula

Petitioner

Restituta Kalemera

Petitioner

Nkole Muya

Petitioner

Emmanuel C. Emmanuel

Petitioner

Bashir Kassam

Petitioner

The Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Preliminary Objections

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether affidavits sworn virtually comply with Section 8 of the Notaries Public and Commissioner for Oaths Act
  2. 2 Whether the petition is incompetent for alleging violation of constitutional articles outside Articles 12 to 29
  3. 3 Whether the originating summons contravenes Section 4(1) of the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act

Ratio Decidendi

The affidavits did not comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 8 of the Notaries Public and Commissioner for Oaths Act, as there was no evidence the deponents appeared before the commissioner for oaths, either physically or virtually, on the stated dates. The petition alleged violations of constitutional articles outside the scope of Articles 12 to 29, rendering it incompetent under Section 4(1) of the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act.

Court Disposition

petition dismissed as incompetent

Orders

  • Each party to bear its own costs