paul revocatus kaunda vs attorney general 2020 tzhc 4587 14 december 2020

paul revocatus kaunda vs attorney general 2020 tzhc 4587 14 december 2020

Section 8(3) of BRADEA is constitutionally valid as it does not violate articles 13(2) & (3), 26(1) & (2), or 30(3) & (4) of the Constitution. A Bill is a proposal with no force of law and cannot infringe constitutional rights before enactment. The provision reflects the principle of separation of powers and the constitutional protection of parliamentary privilege. There was no evidence or circumstances shown by the petitioner to justify pre-enactment judicial intervention. The presumption of constitutionality applies, and the petitioner's arguments were unsupported by the pleadings or affidavit.

Citation
paul revocatus kaunda vs attorney general 2020 tzhc 4587 14 december 2020
Parties
Petitioner: Paul Revocatus Kajinpa; Respondent: The Attorney General
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
14 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment
Outcome
petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Constitutionality of Legislation, Separation of Powers, Judicial Review, Parliamentary Privilege
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Constitutionality of Legislation Separation of Powers Judicial Review Parliamentary Privilege

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Revocatus Kajinpa

Petitioner

The Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 8(3) of the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act (BRADEA), Cap. 3 R.E 2019, is unconstitutional for violating articles 13(2) & (3), 26(1) & (2), and 30(3) & (4) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania

Ratio Decidendi

Section 8(3) of BRADEA is constitutionally valid as it does not violate articles 13(2) & (3), 26(1) & (2), or 30(3) & (4) of the Constitution. A Bill is a proposal with no force of law and cannot infringe constitutional rights before enactment. The provision reflects the principle of separation of powers and the constitutional protection of parliamentary privilege. There was no evidence or circumstances shown by the petitioner to justify pre-enactment judicial intervention. The presumption of constitutionality applies, and the petitioner's arguments were unsupported by the pleadings or affidavit.

Court Disposition

petition dismissed