raymond paul kanegene and another vs attorney general 2020 tzhc 4032 26 november 2020

raymond paul kanegene and another vs attorney general 2020 tzhc 4032 26 november 2020

Petitioners failed to prove that sections 16 and 39(2)(a)&(b) of the Cybercrimes Act violate articles 16 and 18 of the Constitution; the provisions are clear, contain safeguards, and are constitutionally valid; the petition is not res judicata.

Citation
raymond paul kanegene and another vs attorney general 2020 tzhc 4032 26 november 2020
Parties
Petitioner: Raymond Paul Kanegene; Petitioner: Bob Chacha Wangwe; Respondent: The Attorney General
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
26 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment
Outcome
petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Constitutionality of Statutory Provisions, Right to Privacy, Freedom of Expression, Cybercrimes, Ministerial Powers
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Information Technology Law Constitutionality of Statutory Provisions Right to Privacy Freedom of Expression Cybercrimes Ministerial Powers

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raymond Paul Kanegene

Petitioner

Bob Chacha Wangwe

Petitioner

The Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 16 of the Cybercrimes Act is unconstitutional for violating articles 16 and 18 of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether section 39(2)(a)&(b) of the Cybercrimes Act is unconstitutional for violating articles 16 and 18 of the Constitution
  3. 3 Whether the impugned provisions are saved by other constitutional provisions

Ratio Decidendi

Petitioners failed to prove that sections 16 and 39(2)(a)&(b) of the Cybercrimes Act violate articles 16 and 18 of the Constitution; the provisions are clear, contain safeguards, and are constitutionally valid; the petition is not res judicata.

Court Disposition

petition dismissed

Orders

  • no order as to costs